Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Football Hooliganism (Report)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to implement the report on football crowd behaviour, 1977.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I have asked the Scottish Football Association to draw the attention to clubs to the recommendations affecting them directly. A Bill is at present before the House which will enable the courts to impose community service orders on football hooligans. I shall shortly be discussing with football bodies community projects involving clubs and young supporters. My right hon. Friend and I are considering what further action might be taken in the light of comments that we have received.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister agree that there is much in the Bill to be commended? I hope that he will make further progress in bringing it to the notice of the public generally. In order to set an example, will the Scottish Office announce soon the expected grant of £4 million to improve Hampden Park?

Mr. McElhone: That is another question, of course. The hon. Member, who takes a keen interest in the Hampden Park project, will know that discussions are going on and that we are considering the costs of the project. I thank him for his comments on the Bill and assure him that I will pass them on to my hon. Friend who is dealing with it.

Mr. Canavan: Since St. Johnstone supporters are normally well behaved, is there any rational explanation for the savage invasion of Perth last week, when hanging, flogging and even the firing squad were being demanded by a crowd of Tory reactionaries, ably led by an infamous political hooligan from Cathcart?

Mr. McElhone: I am extremely worried about crowd behaviour, especially what I saw on the television screen from Perth. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) warned the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party about extremism. It is to his credit that he spoke in those terms at Perth. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question.

Mr. Welsh: How closely has the Minister been following experiments in England and Wales with Saturday afternoon detention centres for football hooligans and rowdies, and what plans does he have to extend that system to Scotland?

Mr. McElhone: If the hon. Gentleman will study the report of the football working party, which received a great deal of praise from the authorities in England, he will see that many measures are discussed there, including taking care of the hooligans in a punitive sense as well as looking at the problem in an educational sense.

Dr. Bray: What plans does my hon. Friend have to explore football crowd behaviour in Argentina?

Mr. McElhone: I understand that that is at the discretion of my right hon. Friend and is dependent on the possible success of the Scottish team in the early rounds.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the gathering at Perth was an example to all Scottish parties, particularly to the Labour Party, whose Scottish gatherings are simply extremist shambles? On the particular question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), can the Minister say, after this long delay, when he expects to make the announcement of a decision on Hampden Park?

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. I have the first page of the Leader of the


Opposition's speech, I shall not read it, of course, but it says that she was complimented on major victories at the ballot box in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member reported to her the right decision at Garscadden and did not mislead her into thinking that the Conservatives won there. The hon. Gentleman knows that it was a shambles at Perth, but that in no way relates to our problem at football grounds.

Nairn (Petrochemical Complex)

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the question of the possible siting of a petrochemical complex near Nairn.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): My right hon. Friend has received one letter objecting to the mention of a site near Nairn in a general survey commissioned by the Highland Regional Council and other bodies.

Mrs. Ewing: That reply suggests that the Minister is not aware that my Question has been overtaken—satisfactorily from my point of view—by events. The Highland Regional Council has now decided not to have this chemical complex near Nairn. In that event, will the Minister give his view of the siting of such a complex in the Highland area, which is totally dependent on tourism and fishing, against the united wishes of the people, the district council and the sitting Members of Parliament?

Mr. MacKenzie: Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am sure, I am confused by the hon. Lady's supplementary question. She said that it had already been overtaken by events. There are no proposals for a petrochemical plant at Nairn or anywhere else. In any event, my right hon. Friend would not be involved unless a petrochemical planning application came before him.

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] The right hon. Gentleman did not know the answer.

Scottish Assembl

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he expects the cost of the elections to the Scottish Assembly will be.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): £1,120,000 is the best available estimate.

Mr. Knox: Would the cost of the elections be any different if they were conducted on the basis of proportional representation? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the decision of another place on this matter, since it would be a more sensible and progressive decision than the decision of this House? Will he recommend to his colleagues in the Government that PR should be retained in the Scotland Bill, as it is obviously a very much fairer system than first past the post?

Mr. Ewing: No, I shall not recommend my colleagues in the Government to adopt PR for the Assembly elections. I shall not comment on the decision of another place, because the House will have an opportunity to pass its own verdict on that decision when the Bill returns from another place. Obviously, the costs that we have assessed are based on the existing electoral system.

Mr. Dewar: Does my hon. Friend accept that, despite the considerable scaremongering from the Conservative Opposition about the cost of the Assembly, recent by-election experiences have underlined the very strong public support for the Government's devolution policy? Does he agree with me that it is sad for those of us who believe that a coherent and, at least, occasionally effective Opposition are good for the political system, to see the Scottish Conservative Party in total disarray, ratting on its previous devolution commitments and, finally, forfeiting any claim to represent Scottish public opinion?

Mr. Ewing: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. During the passage of the Bill I argued that no democrat should ever count the cost of an extension of democracy in money terms. I take my hon. Friend's point about the Conservative Opposition ratting on their policies. I remember you, Mr. Speaker, once using the phrase that someone was in danger


of being labelled as the person who had broken more promises than Casanova. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is in serious danger of that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I say that?

Mr. Russell Johnston: In view of the reasonable point made by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), what consideration have the Government given to the possibility of the House of Lords sticking on this constitutional question in view of the very large majority by which it passed PR?

Mr. Ewing: The best advice that can give to the hon. Gentleman and the House is to wait until the Bill comes back from another place and the House passes its verdict on what was decided in another place.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he considers the Scottish Assembly is likely to begin work.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): This depends on the date of the Assembly elections.

Mr. Thorne: Has my right hon. Friend yet been able to assess the damage done to the provisional programme by the unelected gentlemen in the other place? Can he give us any information about his thoughts on the matter?

Mr. Millan: We are keeping an eye on what is happening in the other place, and I think we shall have certain propositions to put to the House when we get back the amendments from the other place. But I cannot really anticipate what will happen. We are well up to the timetable, and I see no reason why the timetable for Royal Assent before the Summer Recess should not be adhered to comfortably.

Mr. Fairbairn: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that most of the unelected Members of the other place who have taken part in this matter were put there by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), and that this Assembly, if it ever sits—which, praise God, it will not—will not have the benefit of any check upon its stupidities?

Mr. Millan: I do not know whether I accept what the hon. and learned Member

said about the kind of opposition that the Bill has been having in another place. It has been opposed by a rather motley crew, as far as I can see.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from the irrelevancy of what happens in the other place, the important question affecting the Assembly is the decision of the Scottish people in the referendum? That is what really determines the matter. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter for the Scottish people?

Mr. Millan: That is certainly my view, and I hope that it is the view of every hon. Member of this House—which makes it rather odd that some hon. Members, even at this late stage, seem to want to deny the Scottish people the right to take a decision on the matter.

Mr. Reid: Is not it disgraceful that another place elected by no one and encouraged by the Conservatives should be making such a dog's breakfast of the Scottish Bill? Will the Secretary of State now take the opportunity to warn the Conservative Party of the great danger of playing the "peers versus the people" game?

Mr. Millan: There would be a danger in that if that were to happen. But the Government have made their views known on the various amendments moved in the House of Lords, and we shall consider what to do about any amendments in the later stages of the Bill there. But, of course, we shall return to all these matters here in the House of Commons, when the Government will take a very robust view of what has happened in the other place.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the reasons why we are having so much discussion in the Lords is that the Government forced this Bill through under a savage guillotine, which resulted in three-quarters of the Bill not being discussed at all? As for the timetable, will he assure us that he will not add to the uncertainty by delaying the referendum? Why cannot he give us a clear assurance that if the Bill goes through before the recess we shall have a referendum in September?

Mr. Millan: For a long time the Conservative Party maintained a hypocritical stance that it was really in favour of devolution, but it abandoned that at its conference last week. As a result, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) would like us to continue discussions on these matters indefinitely. That is not the Government's view. We intend to see that the Bill is put on the statute book, and the hon. Member for Cathcart can be assured that the referendum will then take place without any unnecessary delay.

Social Work Departments

Mr. Watt: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to transfer responsibility for social work departments currently exercised by regional authorities to relevant district authorities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McElhone: No, Sir.

Mr. Watt: Is the Minister claiming that he is unaware of the constant anomalies which crop up because of the continued division of responsibility between the regions—which are responsible for social work—and the districts—which are responsible for housing? Is not he aware of the hurt that this is doing to the care of the elderly in Scotland? Is it not time that he gave this matter more urgent attention?

Mr. McElhone: I am not aware of the concern that has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman regarding the connection between the regions and the districts. My understanding is that this is working quite well. Nevertheless, the real need with regard to the elderly is not so much to reorganise local government as to reorganise society in order to return to the first principle of caring for the elderly and the young.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: When will we have a decision on the responsibility for List D schools?

Mr. McElhone: That matter is under active consideration at the present time.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Too long.

Mr. McElhone: It may be too long, but, nevertheless, we would be accused of riding roughshod over many interests

if we took an early decision. At the present time, many consultations are taking place with various bodies throughout Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the Minister agree that the working of the 1973 Act should not be looked at piecemeal? If any minor adjustments are necessary, would it not be better to set up a high-powered commission for this purpose and to receive the benefit of a report?

Mr. McElhone: My own view is that we should not set up any more commissions to consider the reorganisation of local government. Any reorganisation that might take place is best left to the Assembly.

Electricity Boards (Debt Recovery)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a general direction to the electricity boards to stop the practice of using warrant sales as a means of recovering debt, in view of the current investigation into complaints about the practice; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: No, Sir. The action taken by the boards to recover debt is a matter for their commercial judgment. I understand that it is only on extremely rare occasions that the boards have warrant sales carried out.

Mr. Dempsey: If my right hon. Friend studied some of the provincial newspapers, he would find that this practice is very extensive. In view of the inhumanity of the whole affair, the public humiliation that it causes to debtors, and the fact that other Energy Departments have virtually abandoned it, will not he give the electricity boards some advice in order that this practice should cease?

Mr. MacKenzie: In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, I am bound to put this into perspective. The boards follow the procedures for securing payment of debt set out in the code of practice, of which, I am sure, my hon. Friend is aware. Despite the debts due to the electricity boards, there was only one warrant sale in the past year.

Mr. Corrie: Will the Minister encourage the boards to fit slot meters


into houses where people are having trouble paying their bills? They seem extremely reluctant to do this, yet it would be one way of making people budget so that they could have their heat and food.

Mr. MacKenzie: The boards have introduced the code of practice on disconnections, which is designed to help people in trouble with their electricity bills. They have introduced a wide range of other measures, including stamps, and so on. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the boards do look at the question of prepayment meters.

Road Repairs (Villages)

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the resources available to regional councils in Scotland to keep minor roads in villages in a proper state of repair.

Mr. McElhone: The provision for road maintenance in relevant expenditure for rate support grant in 1978–79 has been increased as compared with 1977–78. It is for regional and island councils to determine priorities for particular roads.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that because the work on these roads, before reorganisation of local government, was undertaken by the district councils, they seem to have been left out of the calculations of the new regional councils? Would it not be right for the Scottish Office now to consider a more satisfactory arrangement in order that the maintenance of these roads becomes obligatory rather than discretionary?

Mr. McElhone: The 1973 local government reorganisation Act was designed to leave as much power and autonomy as possible with the local authorities. That was the Conservative Opposition's Act. Therefore, we, as a Government, have increased our financial contribution through the rate support grant from £72·7 million to £78·3 million at 1977 prices. We, as a central authority, have increased our money. It is for the region, within the rate support grant allocation, to determine its priorities, be they roads, villages, or otherwise.

Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister accept that a great burden would be

placed upon quite ordinary house owners if they had to bring roads up to the standard that the regional councils demanded before the regional councils would take them over? Would that not be a great burden on ordinary people?

Mr. McElhone: The real damage to roads in the last few days—and this will apply also to the next few days—resulted from the large number of SNP Volvo and Japanese car owners rushing to Hamilton to save their deposit.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Do not this Question and Question No. 4 make the Minister think that there may be too many responsibilities and powers at regional level and too few at district level?

Mr. McElhone: I cannot accept that. The SNP fought a campaign on the issue of abolishing the regions and it got a very clear answer from the people of Scotland.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister agree that the truth of this matter is that the reduction in standards on minor roads is due to the extreme pressure placed by the Government on local authorities as a result of the total failure of all their economic policies?

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry, but I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee I had the chance to point to the failings of the Tories' 1973 Local Government Act. We gave priority to local authorities, in the sense of allocating additional money to them. We have allocated almost £6 million for next year, which can be spent on roads. If local authorities wish to use the money for maintenance or for other purposes, or, indeed, for purposes away from roads altogether, they may do so. We have left it to discretion at regional level. Surely that was the decision of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), as the Minister who piloted the legislation through the House.

School Transport

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a statement on revised proposals for school transport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McElhone: My right hon. Friend has no such proposals in view.

Mr. Hunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the LAMSAC Report, prepared for the Department of Education and Science, places a great deal of emphasis on fare paying by children travelling to school? Does he realise that if this comes to Scotland and local authorities accept such a proposal, there will be great opposition from parents in Scotland and hon. Members in this House? If this is a matter that comes up, will my hon. Friend use his powers to ensure that local authorities are discouraged from introducing such schemes, which in some cases will result in the means-testing of parents?

Mr. McElhone: With respect to my hon. Friend, I can do no more than repeat my original answer. My right hon. Friend has no such proposals in view.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Has the Minister given any consideration to the possibility of giving regional authorities more discretion in regard to the mileage rule so that, if they feel it appropriate that they should provide school buses, for whatever reason, they may do so?

Mr. McElhone: Local authorities already have discretion to change the patterns from the statutory limit of two miles for schoolchildren under eight years old and three miles for those over eight years old. I quote Strathclyde as an example. It sets a standard of one mile for those under 12 years of age and two miles for those over 12. The discretion rests with the regional authorities.

Mr. Fairbairn: With regard to the undesirability of means-testing parents to discover whether their children are eligible for school transport, why is it objectionable to means-test parents for that purpose but not objectionable if the parents want a divorce?

Mr. McElhone: I am afraid that the hon. and learned Member has gone astray again. As I understand it, there is no proposal to conduct a means test for this system of helping people with transport.

Home Ownership

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the rate of home ownership in Scotland; and what is the rate of home

ownership in all other countries in Western Europe.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I am arranging for the latest figures available for other European countries to be published in the Official Report. Owner-occupied housing in Scotland has been rising in recent years, from 31·7 per cent. in 1972 to 34 per cent. last year.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that Scotland has the lowest rate of owner-occupation and home ownership in Western Europe and that the electors of Hamilton will realise that the Conservative Party is the only party which can effectively redress the balance?

Mr. Brown: I do not think that any other hon. Member believes that. It does not require any comment from me.

Mr. Henderson: Has the hon. Member's attention been drawn to the series of articles in The Scotsman this week about foreign purchases of Scottish land? Does he not feel that these call for some investigation? Further, does he think that this will help home ownership in Scotland in any way?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member had been attending to his duties, he could have put down a Question on that subject. It is not a matter with which I am dealing at the moment.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my hon. Friend tell us what is so wonderful about home ownership?

Mr. Brown: I need more time to think about that one. However, the Green Paper highlighted the difficulty of trying to assess who gets the better bargain—the council tenant or the owner-occupier who gets tax relief.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Give them the choice.

Mr. Brown: They have the choice. What we made abundantly clear is that both sides are assisted substantially by the Government.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that every survey that has been taken by independent outside bodies and by national newspapers has shown that the majority of young Scots people would


like to own their homes? Why does the Labour Party consistently stand out against that aim?

Mr. Brown: With great respect to the hon. Member, some of these surveys have not been analysed. Nor have they even been conducted in depth. I received 406 applications to sell council houses last year, from a variety of local authorities. I approved 350 applications. The actual number sold was 59. There is no great demand from council tenants to buy their houses.

Following is the information:



Per cent.


Ireland
68 (1971)


Luxembourg
56 (1970)


Italy
52 (1971)


Denmark
48 (1970)


France
46 (1975)


West Germany
36 (1972)


Belgium
53 (1970)

Economic Prospects

Mr. Fairgrieve: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Scottish economy over the next six months.

Mr. Millan: The results of the latest CBI industrial trends survey for Scotland were considerably more encouraging than those reported in January, and unemployment has fallen in recent months. As in the United Kingdom economy, I expect some recovery in activity in Scotland during the present year.

Mr. Fairgrieve: In spite of what the Minister said, may I ask him whether, despite the appointment of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to look after small businesses, anything has been done for small businesses, which are the one area which could provide more employment for Scotland, to remove the frustrations and restrictions with which they continually have to deal and which are stopping them from taking on more people?

Mr. Millan: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should overlook the measures announced in the Budget, which are included in the Finance Bill which is now going through the House.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent meeting in Dingwall of Highlands and Islands local authorities and attended by four

Members from four different parties in the House at which it was agreed to press the Secretary of State for an extension of the job creation programme which has been so beneficial in the Highlands and Islands area in terms of employment and amenities that have been missing for a long time? Will he press his colleagues to see whether it is possible to answer that request in an affirmative way?

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, as a special dispensation, the job creation programme was carried on for a little longer in his constituency, I think uniquely in the United Kingdom. We tried to deal with the particular situation there. However, the job creation programme has been replaced by the special temporary employment programme from 1st April. That is working now with local committees, which have had funds allocated to them. I believe that it will do a better job than we got under job creation. The funds available to the new programme are considerably increased, and will increase over the next couple of years.

Mr. Buchan: Is it not hypocritical for the leader of the Scottish National Party to ask for proposals that would involve additional public expenditure a week after his party savagely cut tax-raising in the Budget in the interests of a handful of the rich? Is it not even more astonishing, in view of the earlier question from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), that the SNP seems to object to capitalists in clogs but not to capitalists in kilts?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend has made a number of fair points. It is true that not only the SNP but others in the House have been anxious to reduce taxation but are simultaneously extremely anxious to increase public expenditure, particularly when it affects their own constituencies. I do not know one Member of the Opposition who ever comes to me and asks me to spend less money in his constituency.

Mr. Russell Johnston: If the Government's policy works as well as possible, what is the most reasonable forecast that the Secretary of State can make of unemployment a year from now?

Mr. Millan: I cannot make a forecast. The hon. Gentleman will know that it has never been the practice to make


forecasts of unemployment. However, he will have seen what has happened over the past few months, which, as far as it goes, is very encouraging. There was a substantial reduction of unemployment in Scotland on the seasonally adjusted figures for last month. I hope that that progress will continue.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Was the survey to which the Secretary of State referred taken before or after the recent sharp rise in interest rates, which have fundamental consequences for jobs? Does he admit that after four years of his Administration he should feel thoroughly ashamed that a Government elected on a slogan of "Back to work with Labour" have created a higher rate of unemployment than at any time since the Second World War?

Mr. Millan: That is not true. If one compares the relative position in Scotland today with what it was when we took over at the beginning of 1974, one sees that there has been a considerable improvement.
The relative Scottish position compared with that in the United Kingdom is 134 now, compared with 157 in the first quarter of 1974, which was the inheritance that we had from the Conservative Party. The CBI is reasonably optimistic about the prospects for unemployment in Scotland at present, unlike the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who has the most miserable attitude towards everything.

Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) was slightly unfair to the leader of the SNP, whom I regard as a decent, harmless sort of chap? Does he agree that it is some other SNP Members with whom he should concern himself?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that there is any answer to that.

House Building and Improvements

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what criteria the recent application by the Kirkcaldy District Council for an increase in the capital allocation for house building and improvements was refused.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The allocation to Kirkcaldy provides for the district council's current commitments, with a margin for some new work. It was told, however, as were other authorities, that my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider adjusting allocations in the course of the year to deal with any special difficulties.

Mr. Gourlay: Is my hon. Friend aware of the urgency of supplementary applications being dealt with expeditiously, in view of the critical tender acceptance dates which are often involved? Will he do everything possible to dispel the impression being created by some local authorities in Scotland that the Government are somehow holding up housing improvements? Will he confirm that these capital allowances cover the cost of dealing with dampness in local authority houses which causes so much friction between tenant and local authority?

Mr. Brown: As to dampness, any remedial work can attract a subsidy. That is part of the new system. I shall be drawing the attention of all local authorities to this in the near future. On the transfer of capital allocation to Kirkcaldy, as far as I am aware, we have not held up the approval of anything beyond the tender contract date. The only one outstanding is for Cardenden for £500,000 which we received only last week, and which I shall be clearing within the next few days.

Sir John Gilmour: Does the Minister agree that as the allocation to Kirkcaldy appears to be about £2 million less than it asked for, if this is repeated throughout other district councils in Scotland it must show that the housing situation is much worse than the Government understand it to be?

Mr. Brown: I have great respect for the hon. Member's knowledge of agriculture, but it is obvious that he does not know much about housing. The facts are contrary to what he said. The allocations throughout Scotland have been increased in real terms this year. The individual allocation for Kirkcaldy is now almost up to what it spent last year. If further schemes are submitted for approval, I see no difficulty in giving such approval.

Mr. Lambie: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been some local criticism of the capital allocation for house building and improvement in the Cunninghame and the Kyle and Carrick districts? Will he give an assurance that he will look sympathetically at future applications from those councils?

Mr. Brown: Some local authorities are not anxious to spend money and they are blaming it on the Government. If any local authority comes forward with a reasonable proposal in addition to what has already been given to it by allocation, we shall consider it sympathetically.

Dumbarton (Hospital Facilities)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects additional facilities to be provided so that patients from Dumbarton district do not require to use Gartnavel Royal Hospital.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Facilities at the Vale of Leven Hospital, which will be opened in the current financial year, will meet part of the psychiatric needs of patients from Dumbarton district. It is not possible to predict when the remaining needs of the district will be met, as this depends on the completion of major building schemes which are still at the planning stage.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware how extremely frustrating it is for my constituents, who have the Gartnavel Royal Hospital on their doorstep? Instead of being able to go to that hospital for treatment, they are sent miles away. Is this part of the egalitarian policy of the Government, to make everybody unhappy if everybody cannot be happy? To what extent does the Minister accept responsibility for this state of affairs? Is it not a fact that in previous answers to me the Minister said that it was the responsibility of the health boards? I see him nodding his head. He is acting like Pontius Pilate, and is washing his hands.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has had time to do more than wash his hands while the hon. Gentleman has been asking his question.

Mr. Ewing: I do not accept any responsibility for this problem. It arose because of the reorganisation of the NHS

carried through by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) under the last Conservative Government's administration. What has happened in the years since then is that the Argyll and Clyde Health Board and the Greater Glasgow Health Board have been unable to come to an arrangement that facilities for the patients that we are discussing should be provided in one part of the area as opposed to another. In trying to sort out the problem left to me by the hon. Member for Dumfries, I have called the health boards together to get them talking about this problem so that we can solve it. At present, only the patients are suffering, and that is in no one's interests.

Mr. Craigen: Will the Minister have an early meeting with the Greater Glasgow Health Board to discuss the current level of geriatric hospital provision in the north-west of the city, and particularly the provision for psycho-geriatric cases, which seems to be on the point of collapse?

Mr. Ewing: I do not accept that services are on the point of collapse. That is overstating the case. However, it is an open secret that we are concerned about the provision of geriatric facilities in the whole of the Greater Glasgow board's administrative area, and we are constantly discussing the problem with the board. My hon. Friend will know that a proposal is under consideration for a new mental hospital in the north-west of Glasgow. That development would be in band C of the building programme.

Mr. MacCormick: I am glad that the Minister is bringing together the Argyll and Clyde board and the Greater Glasgow board, but will he also use his influence to try to ensure that the services of specialists from Glasgow will be continued in further-flung parts of Argyll, because the only alternative is for people to have to travel to Glasgow?

Mr. Ewing: What happens in a health board's area, in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has put his question, is the responsibility of the board, and it would be wrong for Ministers to become involved in the sort of detail that he has raised. No doubt the Greater Glasgow Health Board will note his comments when the report of our Question Time is read.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will my hon. Friend ignore the impassioned plea of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) for a UDI for the Hillhead constituency, and bear in mind that the Gartnavel Royal Hospital, which is a very large general hospital in Glasgow, necessarily serves an area very much larger than the Hillhead area, and that the Dumbarton area is very near it? It cannot be more than two miles away.

Mr. Ewing: It must be accepted that health services in the West of Scotland generally throw up problems that we do not have in other parts of Scotland. This is because of the size of the area and the population covered. We must consider what has been said in this Question time. I tell my hon. Friend, who is a doctor, that I do not ignore any impassioned pleas on behalf of patients. We hope that in the not-too-distant future we can sort out the problem to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

Mr. Millan: Despite a decline in landings, the overall earnings of the industry are slightly higher for the first quarter of 1978 by comparison with the same period in 1977, due to the continued rise in fish prices. The future prospects of the industry must of course depend largely on the state of the fish stocks and on the outcome of the negotiations for the revision of the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Sproat: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the very strong rumours that changes in the CFP have already been decided in Europe and that they will not be announced for a few weeks, but that by that time it will be too late for the House to do anything practical about them? With regard to the strong recommendation of the Public Expenditure Sub-Committee, can the right hon. Gentleman say what action the Government have taken about urgently

examining the question of bilateral negotiations with Norway?

Mr. Millan: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are difficulties about the second point that he raised. On the first point, he is talking absolute nonsense. He must know that it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there has been a secret agreement. There has been no agreement at all.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the fishing industry's earnings have been protected by the rise in prices, this cannot go on indefinitely because there will be consumer resistance, and that an early resolution of this matter is therefore essential? Will he give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to debate and vote on the final proposals for the renegotiation of the CFP and that we shall not be committed by any Minister in Brussels?

Mr. Millan: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question. That is why we are so anxious to get the problem resolved. On the second point, I have no doubt that any agreement reached in Brussels will be debated and, if necessary, voted upon by the House. There has been a good deal of agreement in the House about the needs of the United Kingdom fishing industry. We have had several debates already, and the robust attitude that the Government have taken up on this matter has commended itself to the House.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Scottish Office be represented at the forthcoming meetings in Brussels in June? Will the Government maintain their attitude to the 50-mile limit? What is the Government's attitude towards licensing?

Mr. Millan: The right hon. Gentleman would have to define his question about licensing a little more precisely, but I certainly see a licensing system of some sort as part of a final CFP internal regime. On the first part of the question, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that when substantive discussions take place, my hon. Friend and I will be there.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that within all sections of the fishing industry in Scotland there


is widespread appreciation of the work that he and the Minister of Agriculture have done in defending essential British interests in relation to the CFP? Will he say to those hon. Members, especially among the Opposition, who compound and spread totally unfounded rumours that they are acting against the interests of the fishing industry by spreading such rumours, causing dissension and a feeling that we are to be let down? Will he confirm that we are standing firm?

Mr. Millan: I agree that it is extremely malicious to spread the suggestion that there has been a secret agreement about fisheries. It is malicious in terms not only of this House but of the fishing industry as a whole.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Does the Secretary of State not think that the solution to this problem is for us to get out of the Common Market as being in the Common Market has brought no benefit to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Millan: The solution to the problem might have been not to agree to the CFP in the first place, but that was done by the hon. Gentleman's Government, though not, I am pleased to say, with his support.

Mr. Corrie: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, no agreement has been reached, can he tell us what are the main areas of difference between Great Britain and the other eight members? Does he agree that the other eight have been in agreement?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman knows that the difficulties arise over the allocation of the quotas, but particularly over the question of coastal preference and access to the waters within 50 miles of the United Kingdom coastline.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that he will have the warmest support from the Opposition if he sticks out for an agreement that is acceptable to our fishermen? Will he make sure that it includes provision for adequate monitoring, which will carry the confidence of our fishermen?

Mr. Millan: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. Of course, any agreement will need to have adequate

provision for monitoring or it will not be worth having.

Rheumatism

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much is currently being spent on (a) research into and (b) treatment of rheumatism in Scotland; how much has been allocated to treatment in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area; and if he is satisfied with the extent of provision in that area.

Mr. Harry Ewing: My Department is currently spending about £8,000 per year and the Scottish Hospital Endowment Research Trust about £5,000 per year in support of research projects partly or wholly related to rheumatism. Expenditure is not allocated to treatment of patients suffering from specific conditions, and it is not possible to identify how much is spent on such patients. I am satisfied that Greater Glasgow Health Board is aware of the needs of patients suffering from rheumatic diseases.

Miss Harvie Anderson: The Minister will be aware that there are 60,000 sufferers from this disease in the West of Scotland. Is this not the highest ratio in any part of the country? Does he think that 41 beds in the excellent Baird Street clinic are adequate for treatment? Will he allocate part of the new resources for the NHS announced in the Budget to special provision in this area?

Mr. Ewing: I shall have to check the right hon. Lady's figures, but I will accept them as being accurate. The Greater Glasgow Health board recognises the size of the problem, because it has recently endorsed the decision to appoint five consultants in each of the five districts covered by the Board's area. Once stage 1 of the Royal Infirmary redevelopment takes place, it is intended to provide beds in that hospital that have been transferred from the Baird Street clinic.

TRIALS (DELAYS)

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Lord Advocate what are the latest figures for delays in court hearings in Scotland for sheriff and jury cases, broken down into those awaiting preparation, those being prepared, those awaiting


allocation of date for trial and those ready for trial on dates which have been fixed.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I am arranging for current figures of sheriff and jury cases from the six regional offices to be published in the Official Report. These figures by themselves are not a measure of delay. Present indications are that outside Glasgow there are no significant delays in sheriff and jury cases. In Glasgow there are 17 cases awaiting preparation, in which the accused were fully committed in November 1977. There are no older cases in that category. It is estimated that all these cases will be under preparation by the end of June this year.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Does the Lord Advocate think that the trend is in the right direction? Bearing in mind the statement of cases that he has sent me, is it not a fact that 500 cases in Glasgow are awaiting preparation or being prepared, and a further 300 are awaiting trial? Is there not a case for more procurators fiscal and more accommodation? Will the Lord Advocate consider this suggestion?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member has highlighted the problems in Glasgow. The latest figures show a slight drop in the significant figure, which is the first of those which make up the 500 cases. The two courts dealing with the backlog of cases are already making significant inroads into that backlog. I have the impression that this impact is not yet reflected in the figures.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Lord Advocate considering setting up special traffic courts in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: This is a matter which has been considered and no doubt will be further considered in the light of the recommendations of the Stewart Committee, when these come forward.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does the Lord Advocate agree that in Glasgow too many cases are put down for a sitting on the apparent logic that half of them will go away, fold up, or not proceed? Does he

sympathise with witnesses, police and lay people, as well as the accused and their families, in view of the great wear and tear and inconvenience caused to them because of this fact? What are the arguments against fixed dates for sheriff and jury trials in Glasgow?

The Lord Advocate: On the latter point, I have every sympathy with witnesses and others who have to be present when the case begins. On the first point that the hon. Lady made, I am sure that she will be the first to accept that she has put the matter in a very simple way, and that in fact the problem is highly complex. It cannot be dealt with properly in an off-the-cuff answer. I stress that the problems involved are very much a matter for serious consideration by my Department and the Scottish Office.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Lord Advocate agree that the situation in Glasgow is still serious? Does he propose to make another early visit there to discuss the position with those involved? Is he concerned about the number of postponed trials and all the problems that that involves for witnesses, and also the problems arising out of the substantial number of changes of plea?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member put a number of points to me. I shall pick out two of them. On the point about changes of plea, in a previous answer to the hon. Gentleman I put forward a view. It is a matter of interest that nobody has written to me since that answer suggesting that what I said on that occasion was wrong. There may be scope for further improvements along those lines.
On the matter of Glasgow, I stand by the answer that I have given already to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). Trying to improve the situation in Glasgow is a highly complex matter. We have made a real attack on it by having two new courts, which are making a significant impact on the backlog. We are increasing the staff of precognition officers, and accommodation will be improved. All these improvements should make a real impact on the figures in the next few months.

Following are the figures:


SHERIFF And JURY CASES


Regional Office
Cases awaiting preparation
Cases being prepared
Cases awaiting allocation of date for trial
Cases ready for trial on dates which have been fixed


Aberdeen
…
…
23
16
9
10


Dundee
…
…
—
11
1
10


Edinburgh
…
…
1
38
3
22


Glasgow
…
…
275
236
138
195


Hamilton
…
…
13
21
2
13


Paisley
…
…
—
39
—
5

DIVORCE

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Lord Advocate what are the main advantages for persons using the new divorce procedure recently introduced in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: The new divorce procedure which came into force on 25th April 1978 allows affidavit evidence to be accepted in undefended divorce actions. The effect of this is that in the great majority of divorce cases there will be no court hearing at which parties and witnesses have to give oral evidence. Savings in time and expense will result.

Mr. Gourlay: I welcome the improvements in the divorce procedure in Scotland. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell me why the Scots cannot have the "do-it-yourself" scheme, which, south of the border, costs less than £20 in uncontested divorce actions? Under our new procedure, due to the closed shop in the legal profession, even an uncontested divorce action in Scotland still costs about £200.

The Lord Advocate: There should be savings in both time and expense under the new procedure. It remains competent in divorce proceedings for a party to conduct his own case. Whether such a party would be able to take full advantage of the new procedure I cannot say, but clearly the potentiality is there.
On his point about "do-it-yourself" divorces, the general view in Scotland, which I share, is that divorce is a serious matter and should not be regarded as similar to registering or deregistering a car.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Despite the twice-repeated opinion of the Lord Advocate that there should be savings in time and expense under the new procedure, he must be aware that there are those who

believe that the new procedure could be more expensive than the old. Has he made any examination of the way in which the new procedure is working and whether it is more expensive?

The Lord Advocate: I have not specifically inquired into the detail of the working of the procedure, but there can be little doubt that a streamlined procedure that cuts out stages which are at present necessary and mandatory must give the opportunity to save time and expense.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Lord Advocate acknowledge that, all too frequently, it is the children of broken marriages who suffer at the end of the day? Is he satisfied that under the new procedure the settlement for children appears to be adequate and whether the procedure itself is appropriate for ensuring that the proper settlement is obtained for the children, who are the sufferers?

The Lord Advocate: Indeed, that is a matter that is specifically dealt with in the Act of Sederunt.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Lord Advocate institute inquiries in the months ahead as to the possible savings in cost, given that the present undefended divorce costs in Scotland are probably nearer £250 than £200? Will he say something about constructive reform, such as moving towards divorces in the sheriff courts, for example?

The Lord Advocate: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is well aware of the arguments. There are two sides to the case. Obviously, while there are advantages in having a jurisdiction of this kind in the sheriff court, from the point of view of locality and accessibility, one must bear in mind that the new concept of "breakdown" has implications for all aspects of the family. The only court which has complete jurisdiction over all aspects of family matters is the Court of


Session. Having said that, I am glad to accept the suggestion that I should institute an inquiry into the expense of divorce. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the £250 figure that he mentioned, for an undefended divorce, applied before 25th April 1978.

CONTEMPT OF COURT

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the law of contempt of court in Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: In my view there is room for reform in this field. The report of the Phillimore Committee has been carefully studied by the Government, and a discussion paper was issued in March 1978. Following discussion on the basis of that paper the Government will consider what further action should be taken.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Lord Advocate remind the House that although we are a United Kingdom there are two systems of law in this country? Will he further remind hon. Members that if they were to defy a court order in contempt of that court in Scotland and reveal the names of witnesses under the pretence of parliamentary privilege, there would be no defence in a Scottish court?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Member has put forward a view of the law with his customary learning and authority. I point out that the Phillimore Committee, set up jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate, reported jointly to those two Ministers, who share responsibility on these matters.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is no surprise that there are cases of contempt of court arising from the Philistine behaviour of that august body the Writers to the Signet in dispensing with a highly important library for gain and not because it needed the space, thereby depriving Scotland and its universities of valuable books and records?

The Lord Advocate: I have no doubt that the learned institutions in Scotland that wanted the books will take every opportunity of purchasing them. If an institution finds that it is not using its

library it is better, by and large, that others who can use it should get the books.

BRITISH LEYLAND (DISMISSAL OF DIRECTORS)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give the employees of British Leyland powers to dismiss the executive directors of that company.
I bring forward the Bill to seek to indicate one way in which the principle of democratic accountability may be made effective in industry. There has been a long public debate about industrial democracy and I believe that the debate will prove to be fruitless unless we accept that the responsibility of the governing class in industry to those who are governed must be institutionalised.
Responsibility, or a sense of responsibility, to those who are governed cannot be left to the whims and personal inclinations of those who are given power over their fellow men. In my view it is absolutely immoral for any human being to be given power over another human being without being made responsible to him. The ultimate sovereignty must be vested in those who are governed. The prerogative of the people is that they shall hold their rulers responsible to them.
It has been suggested in many different forms—I maintain that it is simply not enough—that the working class should be allowed to choose a handful, and always a minority, of non-executive directors, with no power. That is merely another form of the consultation fraud that has been perpetrated on millions of British workers during the past two or three decades. The analogue of this is the colonial natives who are allowed to vote to a consultative assembly, committee or council of representatives who have no authority to oblige the imperial executive to do anything. That is what joint consultation in British industry means today.
Hon. Members might ask why I have picked British Leyland. There are two understandable reasons for doing so, one general and one particular. The general reason is that there are a number of experiments in industrial democracy taking place within British industry. For


some years we have had the experiment—it is still an experiment—in the steel industry. There is an experiment in the Post Office. I am told that different forms of industrial democracy are being developed in the aerospace and shipbuilding industries. It seems that in none of these experiments has there been tried the enactment of the principle of the direct and simple accountability of executive directors. In that context the Bill would broaden the range of experiments now being conducted.
The particular reason lies in the history of British Leyland. It is an especially compelling reason. As the House knows, British Leyland has had a troubled history. It is the history of an organisation that has been tacked together almost as a series of afterthoughts, and certainly as a series of ad hoc bargains. That has resulted in an organisation structure that is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. The intervention of the State to save the organisation, when it was privately owned, from complete collapse and disintegration was followed, and is being followed, by a period during which the workers have been asked to work within an organisation structure that defies all rational explanation with a managerial team that is probably the most incompetent group of managers ever assembled since the British Army went to France in 1914.
There have been constant changes of management and constant abortive changes in the management structure. Above all, there has been the relentless ignorant and hostile abuse of the British Leyland work force. In the media no good word is ever printed by the British Press about the British Leyland work force. That ignorant and Philistine hostility is echoed faithfully in the speeches of Opposition Members. The British Leyland work force is the most sorely tried work force in British industry. Those who make up the work force have been treated almost as industrial lepers by the Conservative Party and the media. They have not been given a fair deal. On more than one occasion they have been foolishly threatened with sanctions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if they do not behave in certain ways.
At no time has anyone suggested that the employees of British Leyland should be given some serious and effective say in the running of their industry. I can

assure the House that British Leyland workers are more seriously concerned about the fate of the British motor car industry than is anyone in the Chamber. I represent a car manufacturing constituency and I am well acquainted with the attitude of British Leyland workers.
The effect on working men and women of unilateral management decisions is almost invariably bad. That is so for the same reasons that we would recognise in the more general political context. We recognise that unilateral political decisions are undesirable. It is equally undesirable if unilateral decisions are inflicted upon people without any form of responsibility on the part of the folk who make the decisions. We have long recognised that in our political life. Our difficulty is that it seems that we cannot apply that principle to our industrial life.
I shall quote from a statement made recently on that very subject by British Leyland workers. They are commenting on a decision of British Leyland management to increase the production of certain models of car in Belgium at the expense of work and jobs in Britain. After pointing out that they were in no way consulted about the decision, they state that the facilities for producing the models were run down by the self-same management that decided all of a sudden that greater numbers of the model were required and that they should be produced in Belgium. In their closing statement they said:
These facts question whether we have the right type of persons making decisions for the cars division of British Leyland.
That statement was made only three weeks ago by Transport and General Workers Union workers employed by British Leyland.
That is only one example of allowing people to have power over their fellow human being without making them responsible to them. My Bill seeks to make them responsible. I suggest to Opposition Members that before they exercise their prejudices thoughtlessly they think seriously about the nature of the management process.
I quote from Peter Drucker, an internationally famous American management consultant. He said:
The business of management is business, not the government of men.'


It seems to me that that statement by Peter Drucker goes a very long way towards meeting the spirit of my motion.
Finally, I remind the House, if any have any doubts about the capacity of workers to judge their rulers, if we—and we do—judge that the citizens of this country have the sanity, intelligence and sense of responsibility to judge and remove a Prime Minister and his Cabinet, surely to God they have even more ability to judge and remove those who are set above them in their working lives.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the motion?

Mr. Ridley: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Bill would almost certainly turn out to be a hybrid, applying, as it does, solely to one company. Moreover, I thought it significant, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) mentioned so often democracy, that the hon. Member was not able to put into The House Magazine the details by which his objective in the Bill would be secured.

Mr. Litterick: I was not asked.

Mr. Ridley: I wondered, therefore, whether perhaps the hon. Member was a little short on the details of what his Bill would do.
I see no reason why the objective that the hon. Member has put before the House could not be achieved by changing the articles of association, or even simply by the Government, or even the company, deciding to adopt the suggestion that he has put forward, so I doubt whether this is a fit subject for legislation.
However, it is not really that which the hon. Member seeks to do. He seeks to put forward a position and a point of view. The position is that in this matter the authority of the directors of British Leyland should be put at risk.
It is a particularly unfortunate time to suggest this, just when Mr. Michael Edwardes has succeeded in convincing the public and, I think, the work force of British Leyland, that he is determined to reimpose that authority which might one day make British Leyland again a

successful and profitable commercial enterprise. That is what we all hope for.
To threaten Mr. Edwardes, as it were, at this stage, with this Bill, seems to be a very bad piece of timing, but perhaps it was because of the success of Mr. Edwardes that the hon. Member chose this very time, because what he wants to achieve is a breakdown in the authority of management.
At present, management in the private sector can be sacked by shareholders. In the public sector it can be sacked by Government. That is right, because someone has to be responsible for the capital, other people's savings, and the assets which are employed in a business. The success of a business is the profitable and efficient employment of those assets, and only the owners of the assets are in a position to do just that.
I do not know whether the Treasury Bench will be supporting the hon. Member in his request for leave to introduce this Bill. It would seem to me to run counter to all that they are trying to do to establish the viability and the success of public sector companies and industries by concentrating on putting in good management, not interfering and giving them the authority to manage. That is what was contained in a recent White Paper. It would surprise me very much, in view of the slow and grudging conversion of the Treasury Bench, to find them suddenly abandoning their education and following the hon. Member into the Lobby. I hope that they will not do it.
The hon. Member performs a useful function in this House. He exposes to the public view the real hypocrisy of the Left. He believes that he is a window whereby the Left can look out from the free world, but in reality the free world can look through the window back at him and his hon. Friends and all those who think like him.
The hon. Member uses catch-phrases, such as the word "democracy"—

Mr. Litterick: That is a catch-phrase?

Mr. Ridley: —as a means of trying to bring up a stalking horse whereby he would destroy that very democracy. He has no more time for democracy than have his colleagues in countries around the world that are controlled by people who think like him.

Mr. Litterick: Democracy would be destroyed by what you stand for.

Mr. Ridley: Let us examine the statement that the hon. Member has just made. Let us look at the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is no democracy there, either in Government or in industry. I remember as a Minister visiting a big factory, employing 3,000 people, in Czechoslovakia. I made only one request to the management. That was that I should be allowed to meet the trade unions. I waited all day, and it never was able to produce a single trade unionist for me.
In talking about trade unions, might it not be a good idea if the hon. Member imported his views of democracy into the trade union movement?

Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What has this lunacy to do with my Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that a lot earlier.

Mr. Ridley: Again, take the Labour Party itself, to which the hon. Member was referring at the end of his speech. It is a strange thing that the Prime Minister has to use MI5 and the counterespionage forces of MI6 to supervise some hon. Members below the Gangway. This is how a democracy is maintained by the Labour Party. This is how he seeks to combat the penetration of that party in the constituency parties and in all of its various activities. Democracy indeed!

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and with all due respect to the hon. Member, who should learn to respect the House of Commons, as I do and always have done, I should like to ask whether, Mr. Speaker, when Members oppose leave being given to introduce a Bill, it is right that they should actually oppose the Bill and not introduce totally extraneous matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with the arguments that have been advanced in support of it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the

hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) have strength in their arguments, but the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) must relate his remarks, in the few minutes remaining to him on this Ten-Minute Bill, to the arguments that the hon. Member for Selly Oak advanced in seeking leave to introduce it.

Mr. Ridley: I think that I have sought to do that throughout, Mr. Speaker, because this Bill is presented as a means of bringing democracy into British Leyland. But democracy, once it is achieved by measures of this sort, is turned into anarchy, leading to a collapse of the system, and that leads to an end of democracy. It leads to techniques such as interfering with Boundary Commission reports, going on governing when only 38 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Labour Party, continuing to maintain the sham of a Government with a minority support only in this House, not being able to get their tax decisions through—

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—I think that is where he comes from—has not related any sentence that he has uttered so far to the apparent aims in mind. He is merely airing his prejudices against the Labour Party and saying nothing whatever to do with the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) wishes to introduce. Is that in order?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is doing his best, but I must ask him to relate his remarks to the argument a little more closely to the Bill if he can.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Selly Oak wishes to bring in a Bill to give the workers of British Leyland the right to dismiss the directors. I think that we should do as the Prime Minister has asked should be done to him. It should be a question of "Back us or sack us." It is very much more sensible that we should back the management and give it the authority to try to pull this wretched miserable company round.
I ask the House to reject leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motion for leave to bring

Division No. 213]
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Ashley, Jack
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rooker, J. W.


Ashton, Joe
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roper, John


Atkinson, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Rose, Paul B.


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Lamond, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Clemitson, Ivor
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stoddart, David


Edge, Geoff
Litterick, Tom
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)


Evans, John (Newton)
Madden, Max
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Flannery, Martin
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Forrester, John
Noble, Mike
Woof, Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Ovenden, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parry, Robert



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Price, C. (Lewisham w)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Miss Jo
Mr. Dennis Canavan and


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr, Stanley Thorne.




NOES


Adley Robert
Golding, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Alison, Michael
Goodhart, Philip
Mudd, David


Arnold, Tom
Goodhew, victor
Neave, Airey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodlad, Alastair
Nelson, Anthony


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Neubert, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Ogden, Eric


Bates, Alf
Gray, Hamish
Page, John (Harrow West)


Beith, A. J.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Pardoe, John


Benyon, W.
Hannam, John
Penhaligon, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harper, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Body, Richard
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Raison, Timothy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hicks, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Holland, Philip
Rhodes, James R.


Burden, F. A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Johnson Smith. G. (E Grinstead)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Cope, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Corrie, John
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamont, Norman
Sims, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, Burnaby
Lawson, Nigel
Spence, John


Dunnett, Jack
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sproat, Iain


Durant, Tony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Neil
Steel, Rt Hon David


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)




Elliott, Sir William
MacGregor, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Mather, Carol
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Moate, Roger
Tomlinson, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Molyneaux, James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fry, Peter
Monro, Hector
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wall, Patrick


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Weatherill, Bernard

in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at the Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 62, Noes 153.

Wells, John
Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)



White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wiggin, Jerry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Young, Sir G. (Ealing. Acton)
Mr. Ian Gow and


Whitlock, William
Vounger, Hon George
Mr. Nicholas Ridley.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause No. 1

BICYCLES

"The powers of any authority under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to provide parking places shall extend to providing, in roads and elsewhere, stands and racks for bicycles."—[Mr. Horam.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendment No. 65.

Mr. Horam: As is made clear in the transport policy White Paper, the Government wish to encourage local authorities to provide better facilities for cyclists. Paragraph 128 specifically stated that more cycle stands in town centres and at or near public transport terminals would help.
The hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr Forman) moved a new clause in Committee on behalf of and certainly with the support of the all-party cycling group, that formidable new lobby, the existence of which we are all aware. It has been remarkably effective in its brief life, perhaps not in getting hon. Members actually to cycle but in getting the cycling interests across to the wider public as well as the House of Commons.
That clause aimed at enabling local authorities to provide cycle racks within the boundaries of the highway. There was, however, some doubt as to the ability of local authorities to do that. As the hon. Member for Carshalton said, it should be possible for cycle racks to be provided on the pavement in front of stores, for example. He pointed out that local authorities could plant trees and erect bus shelters and even parking meters in those places, and that therefore

it was appropriate that they should be able to erect cycle racks so that people could conveniently park their bicycles.
After a discussion the hon. Member withdrew his proposal on the understanding that the Government were sympathetic to the principle and would seek to introduce a revised clause on report. The new clause fulfils our obligation and makes the powers of local authorities in this respect unequivocally clear. I am happy to move the motion for those reasons.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am glad to be able to say on behalf of the Opposition that we welcome the clause and the positive spirit in which the Government have responded to arguments put by myself and my hon. Friends at other times and on other occasions. We very much hope that there will be strong and explicit commitments in the Department's technical note to the effect that cycling is a means of transport which has the Government's strong support. I hope also that there will be a clear statement of policy by way of preface to that technical note, and not just a little bit of arid technical advice to local authorities. It is most important that the Government's position should be made clear in that document.
I wish to put a few queries to the Minister. Do the detailed implications of the clause mean that the Minister will seek to avoid couching this technical note in waffly terms when dealing with the specific references that have to be made? We hope that it will include plenty of back-up information and advice for local authorities.
There is some evidence—and we have heard information to this effect—that local authorities are in some doubt about exactly what would be the preferred methods of putting up racks of this kind. It would be helpful if the Minister could include in that note a comment, and say something to the House today, about the kinds of stand and rack that the Department has in mind. In what densities does the Minister foresee these racks being erected? At what sort of locations will they appear, because clearly it would not be satisfactory if a local authority decided to put the racks in a place that was not necessarily convenient to the bulk of cyclists or was not related to the other modes of transport? That is the sort of


detailed guidance we believe should be included in the note.
I have a few other queries that I raised in Committee and to which I should like to return. The first concerns road humps—sometimes known as "sleeping policemen". We felt that in Committee the Minister failed to produce a serious response to our arguments. He said that there was only one set of sleeping policemen, and that they were at Lytham St. Annes. However, it is precisely because of the 12 months' time limit on the emplacement of these sleeping policemen that only one set is left in the country. The Minister said that he was awaiting the final report of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory before taking final action. Is it not true, however, that the TRRL has a continuing programme of research in this and other areas? Will there ever be the final report to which the Minister referred? I suspect that that will be just an excuse for delay.
The question of cycle tracks was dealt with at some length in Committee. We hope that in the technical note there will be a clear statement about these tracks and their desirability. If not, there is the danger that local authorities will be left in doubt about what they are supposed to do in law in order to establish that they have removed the footways, which is the technical word, and have constructed cycle tracks in their place. There will be the need for clarity about what such terms mean in law and about how much local authorities will be expected to do in order to satisfy what might be called the legal niceties of the situation. For example, would the painting of a white line be enough to establish the transformation from a footway to a cycle path, or would the construction in concrete or stone of some form of kerb separation between the areas reserved for cyclists and pedestrians be entailed?
In these various ways we very much hope that this will be only the beginning of a positive and continuing response from the Government towards these various measures to improve the safety and health of cyclists.
Having briefly pedalled my way to power and influence on the Front Bench, I now intend to freewheel back again.

Mr. Speaker: I now call one who has pedalled his way to the Back Bench, Sir George Young.

Sir George Young: As chairman of the all-party Friends of Cycling Group I welcome New Clause No. 1 and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman), who moved a similar new clause in Committee which persuaded the Government to move in this sensible new direction.
I welcome the clause for two reasons. First, it puts the word "bicycle" into the Bill. That was an unfortunate omission. Bicycles were mentioned extensively in the Green and White Papers, but they did not get into the Bill. By accepting New Clause No. 1 we shall give a much truer impression of the concern of Parliament about this form of transport.
Second, the new clause underlines how cheap and easy it is to meet the wishes of cyclists. Unlike the other clauses in the Bill which involve the spending of money, all that the provisions on cycling require are powers which will enable the local authority to provide racks. This underlines how relatively cheap it is to meet the needs of cyclists, compared with all other groups.
On behalf of the cycling fraternity in the House and outside it, I welcome this first move. However I warn the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that we shall be back for more and that we regard the clause as just a first step in the right direction, a step towards providing greater recognition of the needs of cyclists.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: From the Labour Benches I, too, should like very much to welcome the new clause, and particularly the newfound interest that there seems to be in the Department of Transport in the problems of the cyclist. I particularly welcome the fact that it now has its own special department on the subject. I wonder whether the official in charge could work his way round on a bicycle to all the Government Departments in the Greater London area in the next month or two to check up on how easy it is for someone on a bicycle to visit any of them.
I am surprised by the amount of difficulty and confusion that one creates if one arrives on a bicycle to see a Minister on a deputation or goes into a Department to collect information. It would be very useful if the Government could make sure that all their offices have bicycle rack provision outside in a suitable place where people can safely lock up bicycles, before the Government start to press local authorities to make sure that the same applies outside all public buildings.
I very much welcome the clause, and very much hope that we shall see some forceful action from the Department in the next few months.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: There is equal concern about the issue on both sides of the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and thank him for incorporating the clause in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) referred to so-called sleeping policemen. They are indeed a hazard to cyclists. Even when cyclists are moving at a speed that is reasonable for a car, sleeping policemen can be a great danger to them and could dismount them. I hope that my hon. Friend will follow the matter up and make provision to ensure that where sleeping policemen are provided there will be the appropriate slot on their kerb side to allow cyclists through without their having to negotiate the hazards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) mentioned Government Departments. Outside the Department of the Environment I constantly count about 50 bicycles of employees of the Department who leave their cycles in the racks provided. I hope that the gentleman inside the Department who seeks advice on the subject, and seeks to bring about co-ordination, can most readily obtain consumer advice from those who now cycle to the Department.

Mr. Horam: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) will be back for more. His views on the subject are strong, and he has always made it plain that he wants to have a strong cycling representation. I congratulate him and his friends on getting

into the Bill something which was not there before. I have no doubt that he will carry on and probably be successful.
The Department is very anxious that cycling should be properly promoted. We recognise that while the clause provides a legal right for local authorities to do something it needs the active support of local authorities throughout the country and appropriate financial provision both by local authorities and Government. If that is not forthcoming, we shall all have talked and legislated in vain.
The hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) suggested that the technical note that we are about to put out might be waffly and in general terms. I readily admit that Government circulars are occasionally waffly and in general terms, but my right hon. Friend and I will endeavour to make sure that this one is succinct, clear, specific and detailed.
We shall give detailed guidance on stands, densities and locations, as the hon. Gentleman envisaged. He rightly said that one can do nonsensical and rather expensive things which do not help cyclists a great deal—they have complained about this—whereas some very simple things, such as occasionally drawing a white line, can be all that is necessary without great expense.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me, rather curiously in the context of a debate on cycling, about sleeping policemen. That was because one of his original new clauses was connected with the subject of sleeping policemen and it happened to be dealt with at the same time. We are awaiting the proper report from the TRRL on this matter. But I am well aware that there is strong public support for the wider implementation of these devices. I have no doubt that there is a strong feeling that they serve a useful purpose.
4.15 p.m.
On the question of cycle tracks and the clarity of the legislation, I again give the commitment that I gave in Committee, that we shall make perfectly plain what is the law on this matter. It is within the powers of local authorities simply to draw a white line on a footway and turn at least part of it into a cycle track. We shall spell out all these details in an appropriate way in the technical note.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Worse than skateboarding.

Mr. Horam: I fear that we may be getting some dissension from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I do not think that I shall draw him into the debate, because I know that he is strongly in support of this broad principle.

Mr. Skinner: I support these principles, as one who owns a Raleigh with five gears. I do not need one of those bicycles that have been given free to Members of Parliament. I think that that is reprehensible. Nobody else gets one. I do not know why Members of Parliament should have free bikes.
I am intrigued about the business of having a white line down a footpath, with cyclists on one side. I can visualise myself travelling at 35 mph—when I am at my best—and a poor old lady walking down the other side of the white line.
It seems to me that we need to look back a bit. Before the war, when we had other job creation schemes in hand not far from Clay Cross, the Government of the day—they were not of the present type, though I suppose that they were not all that much different—put forward a scheme for a cycle track between Clay Cross and Chesterfield, which stood on its own.
If we are to launch out, I, as one who is not afraid to talk about public expenditure and mopping up some of the unemployed, am happy about advancing the case for proper cycle tracks at the side of the pavement, or somewhat removed from it, with none of this white line nonsense.

Mr. Horam: I take it that Clay Cross will be building large, expensive kerbs between cycle tracks and pedestrian facilities when it gets round to this, as no doubt it will. Everything happens in Clay Cross. No doubt the council will notice this new legislation and be eager to implement it at the first opportunity, so that the hon. Member for Acton and my hon. Friend can use the cycle track at Clay Cross when it comes into being.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) raised the question of facilities at Government Departments. He has a very interesting point.

It had not occurred to me, and I shall reflect upon it. I have noticed that there are many cyclists at the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment—perhaps that is appropriate—and that they use the cycle racks provided. We can look at the matter in the context of the note to be circulated shortly on general provision for the cyclist, which is the next step in the Government's unfolding policy on this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2

CONTROL OF OFF-STREET PARKING (RIGHT OF APPEAL)

'In any case when the Secretary of State is notified of the intention to make regulations under section 36 and Schedule 5 to the Transport (London) Act 1969 he shall appoint a person to hold an inquiry in connection with the matter or the area concerned in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule 5'.—[Mr. Norman Fowler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this, we may take Amendment No. 39, in page 9, line 6, leave out Clause 9.

Mr. Fowler: The new clause and amendment are important. They will have an impact upon thousands of motorists throughout the country. Perhaps I may sketch the background briefly.
The Government originally proposed two new forms of restriction on car parking. First, they planned to take powers to control private non-residential parking. What was proposed was that powers would be taken to control the private car park—the office car park. Once an area had been designated, virtually everyone parking in a private off-street car park would have needed a permit, and it would no longer have been enough for a firm to provide parking facilities at its own cost. The motorist who parked would have had to display a permit, to be bought at a local authority office. A new body of inspectors would be set up


to check the system. That was the first stage of the Government's policy.
The Government planned in stage 2 to take powers for the control of privately operated public car parks. The typical example here is the sort of public car park operated by National Car Parks. In the event, however, the Government have decided to go ahead with only part of their controls at this stage. I emphasise "at this stage" because they still have both forms of restriction as part of their policy.
The public reason which the Government advanced for going ahead with only one part of their policy was set out in an article by the Secretary of State himself in a journal called Labour Councillor, for which, apparently, the right hon. Gentleman writes exclusively—a position of considerable influence, I am sure, somewhat akin to being Stock Exchange correspondent of the Morning Star. This is what he said:
In a short Transport Bill in a crowded Session, it has not proved possible to find time for both these proposals. So the Government have decided to deal with privately-operated public off-street parking first.
Thus, we see that the first controls, the controls on PNR, have not been abandoned but have simply been put on ice. What the Secretary of State really means is that the PNR controls were so utterly opposed by virtually everyone consulted that it was not considered wise in an election year to push the issue. Therefore, the immediate issue before the House is the control of public car parks.
Under the proposals in Clause 9, the Government will give local authorities power to lay down conditions upon public car parks—the hours of opening, the charges to be levied, how long a motorist may park—and all this will have to be policed, so once again, presumably, inspectors will have to be appointed.
By any standards, these are extensive new powers. Potentially, they allow a local authority to raise prices and to restrict parking. What, then, is the Government's case for them? The Secretary of State set out his argument on Second Reading some months ago:
As someone born and brought up outside London, and representing a constituency outside London, I have never understood why the

rest of the country should not have been given the powers that London is free to enjoy."—[Official Report, 19th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 699.]
I must say that the phrase "free to enjoy" is a curious one to apply to these new powers. Obviously, the Secretary of State is at heart a frustrated traffic warden. But what is even more curious about his argument is that in London—which is where the right hon. Gentleman goes for his model for the powers upon which he bases his case—those very powers have been abandoned by the Greater London Council. Thus, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he will use powers which are now available only in London when in fact the elected council in London has itself abandoned those very powers.

Mr. Spearing: The Conservative council.

Mr. Fowler: Absolutely. It was certainly the Conservatives who abandoned them. That was done because, when the powers were used by the old Labour-controlled GLC, there was a public outcry against them. Therefore, when the new Conservative GLC took over, the schemes which had been started were scrapped.
The Opposition wish to see the powers go altogether in London. In Committee we moved an amendment to that effect, but, thanks to the vote of the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), the Government won in Committee. I hope that the self-employed and other interested parties will take full note of the Liberal Party's view on this issue.
At this stage, therefore, we have proposed that in relation to London there should at the very least be a right of inquiry in which all the issues can be examined, a right which the Secretary of State specifically refused in the London case many months ago.
I should make clear that we regard this debate and the vote at the end of it as being on the principle of these powers altogether, since what is now proposed is that the controls should be extended to the whole country. New parking controls could as a result be imposed in all our major cities, and we oppose that on the straightforward ground that not only has the case for such controls not been made out but


that all the practical evidence points to the failure of such schemes as have been implemented over the past few years.
London is the case in point, but I suppose that the most extensive experiment so far attempted in this country was in Nottingham in 1975 and 1976. Elaborate controls were set up to prevent private traffic entering the city. What was the result? I here quote from the report of the Government-financed Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The report showed that
the scheme largely failed to achieve its two main objectives—making travel by bus more attractive and discouraging travel by private car—and the scheme was discontinued after one year … the scheme reduced bus journey times between residential zones and the City Centre by less than one minute … no significant changes were observed in the mean of travel … the park-and-ride service had a negligible effect on traffic congestion … no significant change in accidents was detected.
That was the evidence as a result of the Nottingham experiment. In addition, it should be noted that the total cost of that scheme was £280,000.
The House should take on board that these new powers will involve a financial consequence. If a local authority uses the powers, a loss will almost certainly fall on the private operator. Therefore, under the Bill compensation will be paid to him from public funds. In other words, the public will pick up the bill for controls of the kind which Mr. Daly sought to impose in London.
There is no question but that sensible policies of traffic control are necessary in city centres. There is no dispute about that. That is why there are parking meters and so on. But sensible measures of control should not be turned into a deliberate campaign against the motorist, which was what the Labour GLC did when using such powers as are here proposed—even to the point of reducing the number of available meters.
No one who has looked at the evidence would base a nation-wide scheme on the London model. As I say, that model scheme has been abandoned by the GLC, and the GLC itself has said that it does not want the powers in any event.
Nor is there any evidence that there is any public demand for these powers. The motoring organisations, the RAC and the AA, are flatly opposed to them and support

the Opposition in their stand. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders also is totally opposed to the extension of the powers. The most that can be said of any of the local response is that the current proposals are less objectionable than PNR, which the Government have merely postponed.
I turn now to a point made by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee. He suggested that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities welcomed—that was his word, "welcomed"—these powers. I have checked with the AMA, and the response I have from Miss Shelagh Roberts, its planning and transportation committee chairman, is this:
With regard to the question of car parking, the position is that the AMA took the same view as the GLC, namely, that they were opposed to both the proposal to control privately operated public off-street parking places and also to the proposal for controlling PNR. The AMA took the view … that if the Government were determined to go ahead with parking control, they should at least take note of various improvements which, in the light of the GLC experience, would make the proposals least obnoxious. When the various local authorities and Associations met the Secretary of State to discuss the proposals in the White Paper, there was vehement opposition to the proposal to control PNR parking and a more muted opposition to the proposal to extend the GLC powers for the control of public off-street parking. It may be that, because we were less fierce in our objections to this proposal, the Under-Secretary has got the wrong idea. Certainly, there is no question whatever of the AMA having favoured this proposal.
I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will put the record straight on that, which was a major point used in the Government's argument in Committee.
The Government should think again. Too often, such schemes are based on the false assumption that they will help public transport. The theory is that people will abandon their cars and take to public transport. The fallacy here is that in cities such as London the vast majority of commuters—over 80 per cent.—already use public transport in any event. Many who use cars do so because they have no option—for business reasons and so on.
If we continue making life unnecessarily difficult in our city centres, firms will move out, totally against the general policy favoured by both parties. These are extensive powers for which the Government have failed to make a case. It would be dangerous to give powers on


that basis, and I urge the House to support the new clause.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I am at a loss to understand what the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) is worried about. He agrees with the case for general controls. This country has been later than others in taking controls. America recognised in 1945 that parking places in city centres should be discouraged because they caused congestion. The then London County Council's attitude at the time was very different. It insisted on places being provided in new buildings, which has since been discovered to be a mistake. That is one of London's problems today.
The remarkable thing is that the hon. Member is judging the Bill by a party political controversy in London. The Bill only transfers powers from Government to local authorities. Obviously, the hon. Member has no confidence in local authorities—chiefly Conservative-controlled, let us remember—to operate these powers. If he is so certain that control will be unpopular locally, what is he afraid of? If he is so certain that the AMA represents the views of other authorities, he has nothing to worry about.
Conservatives have urged the devolution of central Government powers, particularly in education and other matters which local people understand better. They talk of powers being "enjoyed" These powers will be enjoyed by local authorities which are subject to pressure by citizens who find congestion in their cities impossible and want to deal with it quickly. The Secretary of State is adopting a progressive and liberal outlook in devolving his own powers. In other words, he does not want to be a dictator in matters best left to local authorities.
The hon. Member referred particularly to London. The London Conservatives, to help them win an election, campaigned against powers which it was assumed were excessive, but in the Greater London Council's debate yesterday the Labour transport spokesman described the increasing congestion in London as a result. I am sure that that is why the hon. Gentleman is worried. When the

effect of the Tory proposal in London is generally realised, there will be a reaction against those reactionary attitudes.
I am certain that when these powers are devolved the local authorities will take greater powers than the Minister has so far taken. There will be greater control. That is what the hon. Gentleman fears. The controls will be operated by whichever party controls the local authority. It is the local authorities which suffer most from congestion and pollution, and they know best how to control the traffic in their streets. Therefore, this provision is long overdue and I congratulate the Government on introducing it at last.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I shall not attempt to follow the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) at any length, but he made it clear that he and his party favour a great cut in the number of cars coming into London and other cities.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: indicated dissent.

Mr. Burden: If not, what is the argument for the Government's proposals?

Mr. Atkins: I repeat that the Bill simply says that power should be given to local authorities. What use they make of it is up to them, but this is separate from a consideration of London alone.

Mr. Burden: That is an extraordinary argument. If Parliament gives powers, it must take responsibility and must know what the powers are for. I suggest that that was the intention when these powers were given under the Transport (London) Act 1969. It is extraordinary that in the following eight years the Act has not been completely implemented.
Eight years ago, the cost of petrol and of using a car for everyday trips was far lower. Thus, if people today find public transport cheaper and more convenient, they have a great incentive to use it. If the incoming Conservative GLC had seen real benefits to Inner London from the operation of the powers under the 1969 Act, even on political grounds, from their own point of view, they would not have reversed them. Yet, despite what happened in the past, after seeing the results of those powers, the new council decided to reverse them.
Now, those same powers are to be given to local authorities throughout Great Britain. They will have powers to license and control public car parks just as the GLC had. I wonder whether they will give the same careful consideration to them as the GLC did. If they do, I see no reason why they should not refuse to operate them. If it is not necessary and desirable in the great metropolis of London to operate such a scheme, why should it be necessary and desirable elsewhere?
This provision will license not only existing car parks but future ones. In their licensing terms, local councils will control the length, terms and times of parking—both long-term and short-term—and the number of places designated in each car park. The short-term proposal for London was for four hours, the same as on a meter in the streets. The long-term parking proposal was for any period beyond that. But if a person enters a car park for short-term parking, he, unlike a person who occupies a parking meter and can move from one meter to another, will have to leave the car park for a period of two hours before being readmitted.
Far from relieving congestion in the streets, I believe that this sort of operation will increase congestion. I understand that the local authorities may specify the charges for short-term and long-term parking. Is that desirable? Is that what we want? Surely it is up to the operator of the car park to decide what he considers to be a fair and proper charge for the time that he has cars on his premises. Indeed, if it is the aim—apparently it still is—to reduce and cut back on the number of cars entering our cities, one thing will result: the licence terms will demand charges which will deliberately discourage anyone from using his car to go into the city centre.
There is also a requirement for the keeping of records. Under the licence scheme, operators will be asked to keep a record of the number of cars, both short-term and long-term, using their car parks. I have no doubt that all these licence requirements will be used. In order to conform to the regulations, the registration numbers of short-term parkers must be taken when they first enter the car park and when they leave it. Therefore, if a driver applies for re-entry during the two

hours in which he is banned, the operator will have to look up the record to see whether he has been in before. Indeed, if there is a change of person on the operating gate, that will have to be done each time a driver attempts to enter the car park. That will ensure that a person applying for a short-term parking permit does not come back before he is entitled to do so. Operators will have to refuse re-entry to a person who has not been out of a car park for the period required under the licence.
If these licensing terms are as stringent as I believe they will be, and if they are to carry out what I believe the Government have in mind, the public car park operators will always have a considerable number of their parking spaces unoccupied. We should remember that when these car parks were constructed at considerable cost the operator must have carried out a careful review into the likely requirement for the area. He must have based his costings, and even whether a car park should be built, on those assumptions. Those assumptions can be thrown out entirely by the licensing terms.
4.45 p.m.
If, however, car parks continue to be fully occupied, the Government's aim will have failed completely. That is not what they want. They want to stop cars coming into city centres and occupying the car parks.
There is also the power to provide compensation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) referred. Who decides that? Who pays for it? Is it the ratepayers? What are the likely terms of compensation? If these measures denude public car parking operators of space, undoubtedly the proper compensation will be considerable. If the car parks continue for several years, the compensation could run on from year to year. In the end the ratepayers of the area involved will apparently pay for this compensation. The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) nods his head, but that is something which the ratepayers should consider.
What about the restrictions? They will be brought about by high-cost parking space. Do not the Minister and the Government realise that this will be angrily resented by car owners? There


is likely to be angry reaction from people wishing to park their cars. That anger will be imposed upon the employees of the operator. Do not the Minister and the Government realise—it happens even now—the aggro and abuse that can arise and be heaped upon the unfortunate staff? Eventually the operators will be blamed for this aggro. But the operator will not be responsible. It will be the local authority which is responsible, because it will set the pattern and demand the charges.
Another aspect, which has not yet been raised, is that we are getting more and more foreign visitors to this country. More and more of them are bringing their cars. This will impose considerable difficulties on foreign visitors, many of whom may not speak or understand the language, in getting about the country. That is what we all welcome and want. But if parking fees are extremely high and visitors experience difficulty in parking, they might spread that message when they return home.
This whole idea and intention involves more bureaucracy, more licensing offices and licensing staff and the setting up of supervision and enforcement officers. People will have to go round to the garages to ensure that the obligations of the licences are carried out. The operation of this proposal will mean that any operator of a public car park intending, wishing or desiring to build a new public car park anywhere in the country will be dissuaded, because he will have no way whatever of determining whether it is a viable proposition.
I maintain that, in view of all the restrictions likely to be imposed as a result of licensing, natural justice demands—I use the word deliberately—that any operator of a public car park who considers that the terms of his licence are such that it could bankrupt him, impose great difficulties on the public and be against the public interest, has the right to be able to appeal against the requirements of the licence. This is nothing new. It is common practice in a great many of our industries and services to the public where there could be abuse. Abuse could arise here, because many local authorities will have their own car parks, and no one will tell them what to do. They will determine their own terms. By projecting

their own interests, they could abuse their powers over the private operator of a public car park.
Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to give what I believe to be a reasonable right of appeal to the operator of a public car park against the licensing demands of his local authority if he thinks that they are against his interests and those of the public. Whatever we may feel about the Secretary of State, I have no doubt that he is a democrat. I feel that even at this late stage he will agree that it is only reasonable to accede to our request.

Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) missed the point when he talked with such vehemence and declaratory force about natural justice, the right of appeal, and so on. People in the position which he described always have the right of appeal in that the local authority referred to in Clause 9 is the county council. Of course, the hon. Member was right to say that we in this House must accept responsibility for the legislation that we pass. However, it has been a well-known principle for many years that we in this House cannot govern all our affairs in detail and, consequently, that we pass down power to the local authorities.

Mr. Burden: My point was that there should be an impartial referee whom those feeling aggrieved should have the power to approach—not the county council, which is involved with the local authority.

Mr. Ellis: I am always willing to look to people's good sense. If members of a local authority do not behave impartially, it is for the electorate to change its membership. In any event, I am surprised to hear the hon. Member talk in those terms, bearing in mind that most of our county councils are Conservative-controlled.
I turn now to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, he is responsible for enunciating Conservative policy. I thought that that policy came through very clearly in what he said. He referred nearly all the time to the position in London and, indeed, he mentioned National Car Parks.
When we get down to Conservative ethics, we find that the Opposition are


really saying "We may have good friends on the county councils, but when we come to the profit motive, we have friends who are concerned with providing car parks." If there is money involved, it is in that direction that the Conservatives immediately lend their assistance.
I remember seeing somewhere that National Car Parks is a considerable contributor to Conservative funds. I am open to correction about that, but if that is the case, we begin to understand where the Opposition's interests lie.

Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no direct association with National Car Parks. When an assertion of that character is made, should it not be based on fact and not expressed in terms of "I think"? This is hardly the right sort of behaviour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The comment was made in general terms by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). It was not aimed at any specific hon. Member.

Mr. Ellis: I merely asked the question, and I think that it is a fair question. The facts and figures are known, because the Labour Party insisted that all people making donations to the funds of any political party should be listed, and they are listed. Therefore, I do no more than invite the hon. Member for Gillingham to consult the lists, and I say merely that I should not be surprised to see that National Car Parks contributes to Conservative Party funds.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was very critical of Nottingham and other areas. He criticised the way in which they had used their powers in the past. I have no intimate knowledge of these schemes. However, with the advent of the motor car, the problems are immense, and there is no doubt that in different cities, towns and conurbations different solutions are applied. There is no one judgment which can be made in all circumstances. For example, my own borough of Scunthorpe has free car parking on a fairly generous scale, but it is redeveloping the town centre, and it is possible that its policy will change over the years.
If we consider a city such as Bristol, in the shopping area there we see that

one of the largest stores has encompassed in its new building certain floors which are given over to car parking. When the company's trading returns became known, it discovered that the department which made the most profit was that which ran its car parks, and that it might find it more profitable to turn the remainder of its stores over to car parking. If that policy were pursued to the ultimate there would be a glorious bonanza, but the end result would be all car parks and no longer any reason for having them.
Another good example is the City of London, which has always been Conservative-controlled. At one time I was PPS to the late Stephen Swingler, a very fine Minister of Transport. I can remember going with him to the City of London after we had introduced regulations about on-street car parking with meters to finance the building of off-street car parks. We were told by City officials "We have done very well, and we have built off-street car parking. We find that we can build a lot more. But if we go on with it, the City of London will cease to exist as a commercial centre. Therefore, we shall stop, and we intend to embark upon a policy of deliberately excluding vehicles, starting with lorries in working hours."
There are many solutions. Some people wish to attract vehicles into their cities. Others wish to exclude them. Some people wish to have rigorous constraints. Others adopt a policy of free car parking. When the Opposition speak in the terms that we heard from the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield and Gillingham they demonstrate—I make the charge—that they are motivated mainly by the fact that in certain areas of our big cities the provision of car parking is a very profitable business, without regard to the needs of the situation. I think that I have every right to put that interpretation on the remarks of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.
A point that has not been mentioned is that it is right for the House to give power downwards. We cannot hope to know all the circumstances in every city, town and hamlet and to be able to offer the best solution to each of them. From time to time there will be changes. People might follow policies with which we who live in those areas disagree. It is up to us to put the matter right at


the next elections if those policies offend sufficient people.
5.0 p.m.
Is the county council the right body to decide what should be done? There are district councils, such as Scunthorpe, of considerable size. Scunthorpe has spent a considerable amount of money on car parks. It has a lot of expertise in this area. Other towns, perhaps bigger towns, run their own bus services and are heavily engaged in transport. Very often the district councils are responsible for the policies. There may be a conflict between the district councils and the county councils. This is a fear of the new larger authorities.
I have been on a number of local authorities. I was on the Bristol City Council. It was difficult there to know what happened in the various areas of the city. But supposing I was a county councillor representing the south bank of the Humber. That area takes in Beverley, Bridlington and others. It may be that a councillor over a period of years does not have occasion to go to such places. I do not know when I was last in Bridlington or Beverley, but those towns have their individual traffic problems that may require different solutions. When a solution is put forward at county hall, the great benefit of local government is that people speak for their localities, knowing them intimately.
I am not talking about a political doctrine. I am stating the broad principle. Many county councils are so big that their members cannot know or have visited many of the areas for which they are deciding policy. There is often a natural animosity over political differences, whether it is with a Conservative controlled county council and a Labour controlled district council or vice versa. They tend to be at loggerheads anyway.
I hope that the Secretary of State in his reply will devote some time to this matter. I do not support the argument of Conservative Members. On the question of off-street car parking being regulated, as in Clause 9, by the county councils, I have the greatest reservations. I would have preferred it to be the district councils who had control, even if it had been in consultation with the county councils or perhaps joint bodies. In my

area and others, even those with Conservative-controlled district councils, people look to the local district councils.
The old parish councils in villages had to decide whether to have street lighting. Very often different villages decided to do different things. The provision that the Secretary of State is making misses this important point.

Mr. David Crouch: I was interested in the observations of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). I know both places. I am tempted to go back there, having learned that car parking is free in Scunthorpe. I was never greatly attracted by Scunthorpe, but I quite like Brigg.
The hon. Gentleman illustrated interesting differences that exist across the country from one district council to another and from one town and one city to another. Sometimes the car parking facilities are an attraction. There may be an underground car park, a building or just a bomb site flattened out, as such sites are in my city of Canterbury, but with plenty of room for parking. The difference is in the treatment that one receives as one goes in or comes out—namely, how much one pays. Even in my county of Kent it is sometimes cheaper to shop in one town—I hesitate to mention the town because it is not Canterbury—rather than in, say, Canterbury, where car parking is relatively expensive.
I recollect the fun that I used to have as a young man travelling about the country by car or by train in being able to identify certain parts of the country by the different beer that one could get. What has that to do with car parks? Rather a lot: the simile is apt. Today we have a regulation in our beer pattern in this country. There are only about five different tastes of beer in the whole of the United Kingdom, and that is a pity. Tastes used to differ between town and village. I am worried that here we shall have over-regulation of our car parks. I was surprised that Clause 9 refers to regulation in the county areas by the counties. If anyone had to impose regulation, I would have thought that it would be those who would know most closely their detailed urban and town requirement, district councils.
In my small city—the smallest city in England—we have our parking problems.


It is the prime cathedral city of England, with a population of fewer than 40,000.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Is the hon. Member recognising at long last that Truro is not part of England?

Mr. Crouch: No, I normally have a golden rule of never giving way to the Liberals because they might lead one to the wrong place and one might end up in a car park or something like that. I am asked by an hon. Member to "get back to the beer". I shall not get back to the beer. I have made my point about the differences which used to be interesting in our travelling in this country and the beer that we could drink.
Differences exist also in the facilities in towns. I hope that we are not to have one national Government car park pattern across the whole of the United Kingdom. Where is the individuality that we could find expressed in Brigg, Scunthorpe, Canterbury or Tunbridge Wells? This individuality would be gone with over-bureaucratic control and with many more controllers or civil servants to exercise such control. It is not necessary. Truro is a place that I admire. Its cathedral is not greatly distinguished by my standards, but it is a nice place to visit.
In our small city of Canterbury we want to bring people in. We are a small city of about 40,000 people but we have a shopping population of about 300,000 people. We have a tourist population over the year running into millions. We are one of the main tourist centres of the country. Canterbury is also one of the main areas through which all those who go from this country to the Continent and vice versa have to pass. That is a separate problem but one with which we have to live and to contain.
We have to look to our off-street parking facilities. We must provide facilities for people who want to come and shop and for the tourists who want to visit the cathedral and see the old mediæal city. On a rainy day, we cannot tell people to keep out, to park outside the city walls and start walking. That is not the way to attract visitors from the Continent who come over by hovercraft especially to see Canterbury. That is not the way to attract the tourist in London who hires a car to visit Canterbury

or Oxford or Cambridge and makes short sorties out of London. We want to encourage people to come to Canterbury. Therefore we must make provision for them to park their cars. The question is where.
I believe in regulation in this area, but not in regulation from the Department of Transport. We should leave the style, control and organisation of car parking to local authorities. We need some control in old cities such as Canterbury which are tourist attractions, and we have very strict controls exercised by the Department of the Environment.
Some years ago we decided in Canterbury to build our first multi-storey car park. We had a multi-storey row, not just in Canterbury and Kent but through the whole country. We had whole pages of articles in The Sunday Times, and the Economist, the Civic Trust descended on us with all the great weight it can use and even the Arts Council took an interest—quite right, too, because it was necessary to make provision for those who come to the city in their cars and to build the car park in a certain place, but at the same time it was necessary to exercise some control. It was necessary to have some regulations—which exist in our planning regulations—to ensure that we did not spoil the things the tourists were coming to see, such as the beautiful city and the vista across the city, by putting up a great multi-storey building which would obscure the view of the cathedral, the low mediæval buildings and the city wall. All these controls are used.
The Secretary of State will know that recently another proposition has been put forward by the local city council to build another multi-storey car park in a district known as Rose Lane beside the old castle of Canterbury, which is now a ruin, but, nevertheless, an ancient monument. There was an outcry by hundreds of my constituents against this and the Secretary of State for the Environment said "Let us have an inquiry". He did not appoint an inspector but set up a new-style inquiry, which was held locally. The citizens of Canterbury who were against the building of a car park, which they thought would spoil the amenities, the environment and the tourist attractions and create some harm


in the middle of Canterbury within the city wall, were able to make their complaints and argue against the very strong arguments in favour of the car park.
Having listened to the complaints the city council decided, in committee and then in the whole council, that it wanted to proceed. The architects' plans were shown and they were very detailed. I think that safeguards for the real beauty of this part of Canterbury and its amenities were achieved by the architects' department.
However, we ran up against another problem with the county council, which is the authority concerned not with parking but with the flow of traffic. The county council said that the car park could not be built because a car park attracts traffic. There would have to be access and exit points from the car park and it would cause congestion in the main road, which, as the Secretary of State knows, is not a main road or a bypass but goes by the city wall.
The proposal was vetoed by the Secretary of State for the Environment because of the recommendation of the county council as the traffic authority. We have enough authorities intervening in such matters. Do we need to introduce yet another tier of control? Surely the burden of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) rightly said in his appeal to the Secretary of State was that we do not need these provisions.
5.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe speaking to his own Government, said that perhaps they had got it wrong and that if there is to be control, this should be with the district authority. That is fair. I would not mind that, but to put this control in a county headquarters, perhaps 50 or 60 miles away where they do not know the details of problems, would be a mistake. This is a bureaucratic measure to encourage the bureaucrats and to produce jobs for the bureaucratic boys, which seems quite wrong to me.
We need some controls because we must safeguard our amenities. We have

to live with the motor car and provide for it, but we do not want it to create congestion and disturbance. The traffic problems in Canterbury were examined by no less a person than Sir Colin Buchanan, who is a great authority in this country and internationally. He was able to point out that we cannot say that the motor car must be kept out because people are in motor cars and it is people who want to visit towns and cities and park their cars.
We have sufficient planning regulation in the Department of the Environment and sufficient provisions for local public inquiries and so on if parking facilities that have to be built might infringe upon the environment. I cannot see a case for Clause 9, which sets up a further bureaucratic paraphernalia.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It gives me great pleasure to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). He made an interesting and ingenious contribution. He began with the beer pattern. We then had a fantastic survey of the merits of various cathedrals in his part of the world and the South-West. Through the Arts Council and the Civic Trust, we wound up walking down Rose Lane by the old castle of Canterbury, and my hon. Friend ended in the sturdiest terms of anti-bureaucracy which befit him and all of us on this side of the House.
We do not like this measure because it means much greater control of the sort that we tend to think belongs to the Government side. It is a control which is not democratic in the truest meaning of that word. One should not comment on anything that happens outside this House, particularly as far as Strangers are concerned, but it was perhaps an omen of the character of the proposal that when someone was kind enough to call the Secretary of State a democrat—and it was the first charitable thing to be said about him for some time during the passage of the Bill—the results were heard by all. For that reason, I give him no compliments in my few words.
It is for the Government, as they have proposed the measure, to make out the case for it. In a legal sense, they are put to proof. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) put this to the Secretary of State, and I hope that


he will deal with it. He is bringing forward the proposal, but what can he point to other than the Nottingham experiment which, it seems, was disastrous?

Mr. Ronald Atkins: I have found the hon. Gentleman's remarks bewildering. Can he explain why it is less democratic to pass controls on car parking to the local authority? I should have thought that it was more democratic.

Mr. Temple-Morris: With respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) dealt with this point when he said that it was for us to take the responsibility of making the decision about these proposals. We fear that all this talk about democracy being the handing over of powers to other bodies means that those powers may be used in either a democratic or an undemocratic way. I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). He and I have gone through the various stages of the Wales Bill in virtual total unanimity. I hope that before the end of this Report stage—and I dare say it will be a fairly long furrow—we shall agree with each other.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has made his reappearance in the Report stage. It was an encore, as we enjoyed him through 20 sittings of the Standing Committee. Therefore, we are not unfamiliar with his arguments. We note that every time he gets on his feet, within two minutes he is talking about profit motives. One wonders, from hearing him speak, how any wages or taxes are paid. We must put him in his place on this matter because the issue of off-street parking does not quite get us into discussions on the profit motive, or on contributions to the Conservative Party.
Of course I hope that National Car Parks does contribute to the Conservative party. I would be very disappointed if it did not. Equally, I expect that the hon. Member would be disappointed if the Transport and General Workers Union did not contribute to the Labour Party. The hon. Member addressed us on behalf of the district councils. We who served on the Committee on this Bill know that the Association of District Councils has as a vice-president the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe. Knowing

his natural modesty, I thought I should draw this fact to the attention of the House.

Mr. John Ellis: May I reply to the serious point made by the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Temple-Morris)? He supports the local authorities' powers on planning, for example. I was asking whether the district councils should be involved alongside the county councils. After all, car parking is just another aspect of planning. Why should he refuse to give power to the councils in this respect?

Mr. Temple-Morris: Planning is a very good example of the reason behind my saying that the Secretary of State must prove his case. The presence of car parking spaces in general urban development is something that often the planners have demanded. It attracts private investment and sometimes public investment, as many of the parks are operated by district councils. Therefore, we are very concerned with the results, and we have a responsibility to see that democracy is exercised primarily from this House. The proposal should not leave this House without very good reason, and as yet we cannot see that reason. But we would not be over-dogmatic about this, if the hon. Member could convince us.
The substantive point about proving the case is my main argument. Of course, these powers that we are discussing are absolute if they are used. That is why, democracy or no democracy, we are concerned about their exercise. We have a responsibility to oppose vigorously this concept as it has been presented so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham has mentioned some of these powers and they should be underlined. There is the power to charge, as well as powers relating to periods of time and hours of opening. These are matters which can lead to all sorts of results. Take periods of time, for example. I cannot do better than my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham who revealed a nightmarish situation of short-stay parking with vehicles continually coming in and going out.
National Car Parks does not give so much to the Conservative Party that it has not got a little in reserve. If it had to implement this provision the company


would have to employ those funds to buy a computer, because it is quite clear that information on parking could not be dealt with by staff operating the gates. The staff could not monitor the length of stay of cars without having automated assistance. Nobody in his right mind could suggest that the man in his kiosk on the gate is equipped to supervise anything. He is under considerable pressure with cars entering and leaving and he will not care how long cars stay in the park. One can imagine traffic wardens in their uniforms pacing up and down all levels of the car park, with all that that means to the average motorist.
On hours of opening, it is likely that someone will say that perhaps we should not encourage all-day-stay commuters, and should concentrate on shoppers. Therefore, the car park should not open till 10.30 a.m. or 11 a.m. One can imagine a frenzy of activity in the half hour before opening time with people going around in ever-diminishing circles waiting for the doors to open and banging on the portals to get inside. But I do not think that at the end of the day it will make much difference.
The motive in doing this would be to drive more people on to public transport, but in London one must consider the serious effects. There are a number of parts of London where bus services are not sufficiently efficient to get people to work on time. There are too many changes and different routes, and one is driven on to the Tube as a result. My part of London is firmly on the Northern Line and I know the horrors of fighting one's way on to the Bakerloo Line at certain times of the day. One wonders whether we are not just sweeping away one evil for another.
We consider the very spirit of this proposal to be anti-motorist. As we go into the Lobby tonight we shall vote with pride for the motorists of this country. We wait to hear any justification to the contrary from the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the provisions of Clause 9 to be in the motorist's favour, we wonder why no motorists' organisation wants them. They have been clearly and strongly against the clause. The citizens of London were in opposition when they were threatened with the imposition of such control by the previous

administration of the Greater London Council.
5.30 p.m.
When dealing with the motorist we are, perhaps, dealing with the most formidable method of travel in that it applies to us all. We debate road and rail in terms of freight, and to a certain extent in terms of passengers, but 80 per cent. of passenger journeys are made by the motorist. Leaving aside track costs, the motorist is paying more than twice his taxable debt for the use of the roads. In my view, and in the view of many of my hon. Friends, the motorist has a right to go to work in his motor car unless the contrary is established.
It seems that we are being presented with the thin end of the wedge. If we accept public car parking but not private parking, all that will happen it that some clever lawyer—perhaps an hon. Member—will be called upon to devise ways and means whereby public becomes private. I can imagine various plots being taken over and made into private car parks to overcome the proposals now before us. We shall reach a situation, if the clause is enacted, when one without the other is not sensible.
Much depends on which party forms the next Government. From what the Secretary of State has already said, it seems that if, heaven forbid, the Labour Party forms the next Government with a clear majority we shall be confronted at the first available moment with another Transport Bill that will include private non-residential provisions. The right hon. Gentleman has said as much, and the public may be firmly warned.
We are firmly for the motorist. We do not think that the Government have proved their case. We think that their proposals should be rejected.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: We must wonder why the Government are so keen on Clause 9 and whether they are feeling that if only they could control the motorist's parking, let alone all the other controls that they are imposing on the motorist, conceivably they could persuade more people to return to using the public services that belong to the State, and so make those services more profitable and, theoretically, more effective. For what other


reason can there be in the determination of the Government to stick to Clause 9?
I listened to the powerful speech of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). I could not help but remind myself that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Transport and General Workers Union. Members of the Transport and General Workers Union drive the buses. The hon. Gentleman's speech must have sounded good to anyone who is interested in seeing the buses thrive. On the other hand, if we were debating British Rail it may be that the hon. Gentleman would not be so enthusiastic about ensuring that British Rail was successful. In that context his interests are different.
Although the Government are determined to control parking in urban areas, they seem awfully remiss about doing very much to remove a far greater curse from urban roads—the large lorries and vans that clutter up so much of the traffic.

Mr. John Ellis: In a spirit of fairness the hon. Gentleman should not put arguments in my mouth that are a travesty of the truth. I said that local authorities may need to have different policies. I said that it may be appropriate for some authorities to adopt a policy to encourage drivers to take their cars into their areas. I was not arguing for one policy or the other. My argument was based on who should have control.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I leave the hon. Gentleman with his own words. I want to stick to my point about the motorist and the Government's intention of using Clause 9 as a means of forcing the motorist to do what the planner wants rather than what the motorist wants. Despite all the impositions placed on him, he still chooses to use his car as often as he can when it provides a facility that he cannot obtain from public transport.
The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that commuter trains are already full of passengers. There is no question of empty seats in those trains. However, the right hon. Gentleman will find empty seats on some bus services. The right hon. Gentleman should ask himself why the seats are empty rather than whether he should use the compulsion of Clause 9 to deny some people the opportunity to bring their cars into urban centres and

so, hopefully, to put them on to bus services.
I suggest that when a nationalised industry improves its service it gets its own return. To use compulsion is to encourage nationalised industries to be less efficient than they can be with proper management and when they are up against the same disciplines that control commercial judgment in companies that run the risk of going bankrupt if they do not produce the service that the public want.
The motorist pays on average about £10 to £15 a week to run a car. The probability is that he has bought his car from a nationalised industry. He has probably listened to the Prime Minister's exhortation to buy British. We may find that British Leyland has been his choice, but it is conceivable that he has gone to Chrysler, which has also received an enormous tranche of public money.
Having bought his car, having been inflicted with that large expense, the motorist is told that certain equipment must be incorporated. Legislation states that it shall be incorporated. He is told that if he drives into a town or city he will find that some streets are marked with double yellow lines and others with yellow lines and that he may not park in those areas. He may find that some of the roads on which he drives have white lines painted on them and the words "bus lane" clearly marked. He will find that he may not drive on the roads that he thought he was financing through his road fund licence.
He is now to be told that some of the parking that is provided at no charge to the State will be taken away from him merely because the planner has said "I know a way to regulate traffic in urban areas. We shall do it by taking away some of the parking spaces at present provided for the wicked motorist"—the provider of so much resource to the Government and the Treasury—"so that he may not bring his horrid car into our city centres and our buses will become full of passengers."
The Secretary of State is a fair-minded man and I do not think that he will consider that that sort of power is necessary to persuade the public to use public transport services. I believe that he will


want to see public transport services improved. In the new clause my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) suggests that Clause 9, as at present drafted, should go and that the new clause should be substituted with the machinery of an inquiry. Surely the Secretary of State will not find that that is an issue on which he wishes to divide the House.
Clearly, what my hon. Friend is saying is that there may be a case for some measure of regulation but that to use the sort of arbitrary power at present in the Bill is to take the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut. Not even to provide the right of inquiry into whether the restrictions on parking should be imposed is to deny essential freedom to those who wish to provide off-street parking and to place yet one more burden on the hard-pressed motorist.
Dare I just add that all of us who speak in this debate should remember that we have a privileged car parking facility? That is not enjoyed by everyone else. If we are to say that we are to have that privilege but that others may not, we shall be standing justice on its head.
I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State will think again.

Mr. Roger Moak: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on introducing a rather novel feature into the debate. He actually referred to the new clause.
It is worth reminding ourselves that what we are debating is the provision of an appeals procedure, the provision of an inquiry, against the provisions of Clause 9. A very strong case has been made for this very modest provision to be put into the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that there is a very strong case in natural justice for providing an appeal procedure against the imposition of new controls on existing parking arrangements.
I do not think, however, that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) could have been interpreted as accepting a case for extra controls of this kind, subject only to an appeal procedure, because it seems to me that the powers embodied in Clause 9 are objectionable and unnecessary and

should be resisted. But if all that we can do at this stage is to build in an appeals procedure, let us settle for that.

Mr. John Ellis: We are discussing Amendment No. 39, and I thought that the burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) was more related to that amendment, the opposition in principle.

Mr. Moate: I am pitching my hopes only with regard to the new clause and hoping that the Secretary of State will at least have been persuaded by the arguments in favour of an appeal procedure. We are at least entitled to expect that.
What has been immensely valuable about the debate is that it has drawn attention to the very extreme nature of the powers that can be exercised. It is worth reminding the House—and the country should understand this—that if this sort of power is given to local authorities, it will mean very considerable extra burdens on the motorist. It could mean that at certain times motorists will find that car parks will be closed to them, at certain times of the day or night. It could mean that serious restrictions will be imposed upon the length of time that motorists can park in certain car parks. A motorist may drive into town to go to the theatre only to find that he must leave the car park before a certain time. It could mean that he will find himself facing penal charges imposed as a result of local authority pressure.
It not only could happen, but it nearly did happen with the GLC. This was a power that the GLC had and tried to exercise. This is the sort of burden that would be imposed upon the motorist.

Mr. John Ellis: Could be.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Member says "Could be". That is enough, surely, to stop us giving the power to local authorities.

Mr. Ellis: It depends upon the policies embraced by the particular county council, which may be different in different areas.

Mr. Moate: The question then is whether we in this House are prepared to give to local authorities a power that can be exercised upon the whim or


ideological commitment of perhaps an anti-motorist local authority.

Mr. Ellis: They are elected.

Mr. Moate: I think that we should not do this. Furthermore, if the hon. Member is basing his case upon the democratic wishes of the local authorities, why are the local authorities not clamouring for this clause? I do not think that they are asking for this power. The GLC has the power and is willing to surrender it.
Here we have a marvellous situation in which a local authority is willing to give up power over the ordinary people and the Government do not want that. Not only do they want the GLC to have this power, but they want to give this unsought power to every other local authority throughout the land
No case has been made for this. Who wants these powers? The local authorities do not want them. The motoring organisations do not want them. Perhaps the National Union of Railwaymen is rather in favour of them. If it is, I would say that it is because it is under a misapprehension.
5.45 p.m.
Two reasons were given for these powers. One was that they might persuade more people to travel by train. The other was that they were a helpful adjunct to ordinary traffic management techniques.
On the first point, about trying to drive people on the trains and the buses, I believe that this is a total illusion. Let us take the case of London. We know that 80 per cent. of the commuters who come into London already come in by public transport. Those others who do not come in by public transport probably do not do that because they cannot do it. Only a tiny minority exercise a complete freedom of choice.
Therefore, what one is doing is restricting people's freedom. One is doing more than that. One is undermining the basic economy of city life, because the large number of people who come in by car have to do that. They are the commercial travellers or others who need to travel in and out for business reasons. All that one would do by this measure is to

restrict people's freedom without any benefit to our public transport services.
The other argument is about traffic management. In Committee it was argued that these powers were needed in order to create sensible traffic schemes in city centres. Many examples were given of how this had been achieved. It was said that these great achievements had been secured without these extra powers. There are adequate existing powers held by planning authorities to control parking in our great cities and towns.
What we have here is a proposition to give extra, unsought, unnecessary powers over the motorists of this country. No case has been made for those powers and I believe that they should not be extended to the rest of the country.
I refer in conclusion to the speech by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe. Whenever the word "profit" is mentioned, he seems to regard that as a reason for suspecting any activity. He seemed to suggest that by making a profit out of providing car parking facilities for the British people, National Car Parks was somehow doing something dishonourable. Let us remind the hon. Member that there are 21 million people in this country who hold driving licences. That is probably a majority of the adult population capable of driving.
What the private car parking companies are doing, and the municipal authorities, is providing services to the people who want them and the people who need them. What the hon. Member is suggesting, and what the Minister is suggesting in Clause 9, is a deliberate attempt to frustrate the wishes of the people by making it harder for them to park their cars at a time at which they want to park them and at a price that they are willing to pay.
Clause 9 is quite clear in its intent. It is to place yet further frustrations and further burdens on the motorist, who is already paying his fair share for the roads and is already overburdened with restrictions.

Mr. David Mudd: I wish to intervene specifically within the context of Amendment No. 39. Within the rural areas of Britain there is certainly a growing belief that the power


that the Greater London Council has to-day will be eagerly sought after by the county councils tomorrow and by the district councils the day after. Therefore, there is a very real fear on the part of the small private car park operators in the seaside resorts of Britain that these powers which are sought to deal with the problems of the urban areas will act against local private car park operators.
Therefore, I merely ask the Secretary of State to give his assurance that neither by implication nor by application will the powers under Clause 9 be used to act against the interests of individual private car park operators.
I refer specifically to the situation in Cornwall, where from May until October of each year, the village improvement associations or local village associations open their tiny car parks, with the invocation to the motorist to "park pretty". That is not Cornish. It means parking neatly. By parking pretty and paying their fees to the local improvement association, visiting motorists are making a direct contribution to the enhancement of the environment in the specific local community.
If the powers were extended so that district councils could take over the operation of the small car parks there would be over-manning, a disproportionate application of the maintenance costs and the revenue from them would be swallowed up into the everlasting throat of area demand rather than be used for specific local needs. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that there is no threat to the local amenities and village associations which run their car parks in the interests of the local community?

Mr. Donald Anderson: The point that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) made is not covered by Clause 9 because that deals with the regulation of traffic in urban areas. The hon. Member's argument does not involve the definition of urban areas.
The hon. Member mentioned the anxieties of his constituents, but the Minister cannot be expected to give an assurance because the decision is made by county councils which are responsive to the urban

problems within their areas. County councils know best the peculiar problems which he described. The assurance that the hon. Member seeks will be made through the normal democratic accountability of the county councils.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): We have had a long debate, which has been amiable but sometimes it has been amiable nonsense. Many of the Opposition speeches reveal that there is a consensus that in no circumstances, at any time, anywhere and in any place should there be control of parking. Plainly, that is not so. It has not been so under successive Governments. I am sure that all hon. Members will acknowledge that in order to have effective traffic management schemes there must be controls over car parking.
What controls, how they are exercised and under what circumstances are legitimate questions for argument. But our starting point must be that there should be means by which democratically elected authorities have some say about where people park, how they park and how much they pay for it.
I am sure that had not this discussion come early in the debate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) would have seen little merit in dividing the House on this issue. Opposition Members show a peculiar contempt for the idea of local option which lies at the heart of our democratic life and which most of us believe to be increasingly important.
A Minister sitting in his office in Whitehall does not know all the right answers. I cannot know all the special and local circumstances which might be affected by Government legislation. My view is that those who are properly elected in the localities, given our system and the possibility that councils will change in their political complexions, are those who, over an increasing range of policies, should decide the policies which should be adopted for the people that they represent.

Mr. Burden: I accept that the Minister does not know more than many other people, but when he is giving considerable powers in an Act to anybody he should know what he is giving them.

Mr. Rodgers: At least I know what powers are in the Bill. This is an important principle. I am not seeking to persuade the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field that he has made a mistake or to admit it. There is no reason why I should seek to divert hon. Members from their foolish ways, but if the principle of local option is important and increasingly recognised, the House should be cautious of denying to local authorities powers which they might reasonably exercise in the interests of the local communities, subject always to the ability of those communities to turn them out if they make the wrong decision.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Secretary of State has just made the point. That is exactly what is happening. The powers which he is seeking to make general have been overwhelmingly rejected in the only area where they have been tried—London. Will he answer that?

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful to the hon. Member because he makes my point. The powers have been given to the Greater London Council by Parliament. The council has not asked for those powers to be removed. The council has said that it does not currently wish to exercise them and it is not pursuing the regulation which its predecessor chose to introduce. The previous GLC decided to use the powers which Parliament gave it. When it chose to exercise those powers it was entitled to do so. But because there has been an election in London, because there is local option and because the present ruling party in County Hall believes that these powers should not be exercised, it is not proposing to exercise them. That is the provision in the Bill.
I take on board what my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) said about the district councils, but I am proposing to give powers to the county councils which they might exercise if they wish but which they need not exercise. They can revoke the powers if there is a change in the political complexion of the council. I am simply giving them powers which are theirs to use if they think fit.
The GLC discussed the control of off-street parking and in particular privately operated off-street parking. I refer to the minutes of a meeting on 19th October

1977 and Report No. 1 of the planning and communications committee, It said:
Although the Council has decided to take steps to revoke the regulations which were made for specific areas in London, other authorities might find it helpful in their own circumstances to have the powers that are available to the Council.
The GLC is not exercising the regulations because of its right to change its mind. The council is not asking for the powers to be revoked. On the contrary, it has conceded that the powers that it possesses might be desired by other councils.

Mr. Norman Fowler: The Secretary of State should bring his Department up to date. On 14th March 1978 the leader of the GLC's transport committee, Miss Shelagh Roberts, made exactly the point which the Secretary of State is denying. She said specifically that the GLC, as controlled by the Conservatives, does not want these powers. The GLC is happy and willing that these powers be taken away.

Mr. Rodgers: I was referring to the minutes of the GLC. They are the firm record of the GLC's decision.
No one is arguing that we should revoke the GLC's powers. We are simply considering whether the powers should be extended. I should have thought that those who are most entitled to have a view are the county councils. I should have thought that if there were such a dogmatic view that the powers should not exist, the county councils, which are predominantly Conservative, would have made it clear that they do not want the powers.
The submission from the County Councils Association states:
Provision of additional discretionary powers is generally welcomed.
The county councils have said that they would like these powers. Of course I do not believe that the county councils will start exercising the powers tomorrow. Some might but others will not. They will exercise them in different ways, at different times and in different Places.
6.0 p.m.
The heart of the argument is that the traffic circumstances and the parking needs of Sutton Coldfield are different from those of Rugby. The traffic problems and parking needs of Gillingham are different from those of Dover. The


same applies, for example, between Canterbury and York, and Preston and Black-pool. This is a plain fact. The county councils are the best people to judge what the locality needs, and therefore I shall enable them to have the power and to exercise it if they wish. They do not need to exercise it. If the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) believes that they should not be exercised in Canterbury, he simply asks Kent County Council, which is Conservative-controlled not to exercise those powers in his town. The hon. Members for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and Sutton Coldfield could do the same. There is no imposition on the county council, and least of all am I giving powers from Parliament to predominantly Labour county councils to use against the public interest.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) referred to the question of the public interest. But who is the best judge of the public interest? First it is the elected bodies, and ultimately it is the courts. No one is saying that the powers of the courts will be diminished by these proposals. No one is saying that providing powers for elected local authorities in any way infringes, undermines or diminishes the democratic responsibilities of Government in this country.

Mr. John Ellis: The Secretary of State is making out an excellent case, but is the county council necessarily the best body? Where does the district council come into this? The huge authorities may not know the problems of particular towns in their areas. The district council should figure in this somewhere.

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend made before and has made again a most powerful case. But his case is not against these powers existing outside London. It is not for leaving London in the privileged position of being able to control its traffic if it wants to. My hon. Friend is anxious for these powers to be exercised elsewhere by those who are the best judge of their merits and of how they should be exercised. I have a great deal of sympathy with his argument. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) pointed out, supported by the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Mudd), the object is that the powers

should be exercised in urban areas where the problems are acute. Of course, the county councils will show discretion. Why should they not? They will be open to strong local influence not to impose parking restraint if that would be unpopular.
I agree with the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield, Faversham (Mr. Moate) and Newbury that more and more people are driving cars today and are enjoying them. I rejoice in that. It is a fact that has widened people's freedom. This is a measure of the rising standard of living. That is a good thing. I have been a motorist for 25 years and I have greatly enjoyed that time and experience. We should not see this issue in terms of conflict between the private and public sectors, any more than between road and rail. We want a composite transport system that meets people's needs in the best possible way.
Earlier today we debated the subject of cyclists. Both sides of the House acknowledged the cyclist's role today. He has a place in the transport system. All of us walk. More people walk to work today than ride in public transport, on bicycles or in motorcars. Therefore the needs of the pedestrian must be defended, too. I am not saying that I know how the balance should be struck in Nottingham, though some hon. Gentlemen who do not represent that city seem to think that they know. I make no claim of that kind. I am an agnostic. That is why I say that decisions should be made locally in circumstances which are attuned first to local conditions and secondly to local opinion. Nothing about this proposal is anti-motorist. It is designed to enable the elected local authorities to strike the right balance in the right way at the right time in their own localities.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the Secretary of State not agree that, just as an individual has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment about questions of planning consent, an individual should have the same right of appeal, as is provided in New Clause No. 2?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall come to that point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it. I do not know whether by that intervention he implies that he accepts my argument so far and regrets his commitment to supporting the


main proposal before the House. I should like to examine that at some length if that is the hon. Gentleman's position. That is a very honourable position. The hon. Gentleman is a very honourable man. But the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said at the beginning of the debate that this was a question of principle—whether local authorities should exercise local options in the interests of their local communities by having full responsibility for traffic management. My response to that is to say that it is an obvious, necessary and highly desirable provision.
The Opposition have been getting unreasonably upset about these matters. Perhaps in the quiet of the night, when the heat of the debate is diminished, they may quietly say to themselves, although they will never admit to me, "By the Grace of God we were in error."

Mr. Crouch: What is the true reason the Minister believes we need these national regulations? If he introduces them and delegates them to county councils one result that will stand out like a sore thumb is that free car parking in Scunthorpe, for example, will go because there will be new legislation from that county council to see that parking there is brought up to the high standard of payment that applies in other parts of the county.

Mr. Rodgers: The reason is simple. I could develop it at great length. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield clearly does not want me to do so and therefore I shall desist. If I am allowed one reminiscence, however, let me recall that I was a member of the Marylebone Borough Council 20 years ago. We had limited powers. Mine was a lonely, modest and often silent voice faced with a large Conservative majority. That majority was dealing with the acute problem of traffic management in an inner urban area. It was the second local authority in the country to introduce parking meters. They were most unpopular, but that council, like Westminster shortly before it, believed that only by controlling parking could one have effective traffic management.
Of course the local authority can control the parking meters. It can control the rates of its own off-street car parking. But unless it has the potential power to

control all car parking in some parts of the county it will clearly be unable to regulate the flow of vehicles so as to make sense of traffic management. If I am wrong, and I am prepared to concede that I might be, this clause will rest unused in the Bill year in and year out. I shall weep no tears. But surely, if that is the case, the Opposition should wait and see and be content with the Bill as it now is.

Mr. Burden: Has the Secretary of State had even one request from any local authority for powers such as this to avoid chaos in the streets?

Mr. Rodgers: Indeed. This has been the view, less, I agree, of the counties than of the districts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe said. But even the Association of County Councils, on the basis of a consultation document, came out in this direction. It did not like, and there was no agreement on, measures for control of private residential parking. That was not a popular proposal. Because of the weight of business and the length of the Bill I decided not to include such provisions in it, but I included the provisions we are now discussing because I believed that they would meet with a large measure of consent.
I think that I have made clear my view about Amendment No. 39, and I hope that in a sober way the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield may now feel that in prudence, if for no other reason, it would be better not to pursue the amendment to-day. I believe that otherwise he will live to rule his decision. I have an affection for the hon. Gentleman and I do not want to put him in that position.
I understand that the hon. Member for Newbury intends to abstain on Amendment No. 39—

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson indicated dissent.

Mr. Rodgers: I said that the hon. Gentleman was an honourable man. I do not wish easily to amend my words, any more than I wish to see the Bill amended in this respect, but I would say that there was a certain deviousness in the hon. Gentleman's argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—gentle and fair-minded deviousness, when he suggested that perhaps Clause 9 was acceptable.
The proposal in New Clause No. 2 is very serious. I am not suggesting for a moment that it should be lightly dismissed, although I want to emphasise—and to me this is a considerable point, affecting all of our political life—that I believe that elected local authorities outside the courts are the best way of safeguarding the citizen's interests. I am not greatly in favour of the proliferation of ad hoc, quasi-governmental and administrative bodies responsible to nobody, except perhaps at the end of the day to the Executive.
Therefore, my best reply to the question of appeal is that we have an elected local authority. The GLC was, alas, turned out because the people of London took the view, for a variety of foolish and inadequate reasons, that it was time for a change. The best safeguard within the Bill is that one can turn out a local authority if one does not like what it is doing.
Beyond that, safeguards are built into the 1969 Act, which is the basis of what we propose. All proposed regulations must be advertised, and they must be copied to the Secretary of State together with all representations. The Secretary of State may or may not call in those regulations, and if he does not do so he is answerable to the House in the normal way. If he does, he may, with or without a public inquiry, disallow the regulations in whole or in part or consent to them as they stand or in a modified form.
Therefore, there are very large powers now residing, first, in the local authority and its obligations, and, secondly, in the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, and the need for him to answer to Parliament. In these circumstances, I must reluctantly ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. George Younger: We always greatly enjoy the right hon. Gentleman's vigorous speeches, but unfortunately, for all his skill, he cannot conceal that this afternoon his vigorous speech hid a very weak case. One has only to consider what the right hon. Gentleman's case is to see that it is very weak. It is a very superficial argument, which could be used to justify absolutely anything.
The Secretary of State studiously avoided justifying the use of the powers. He merely said "If anyone does not like them, do not worry. We have well elected local authorities to which we are giving the power, and they will decide whether they think that the powers are good or bad and whether they should be used." Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is really asking the House to allow the Government to give local authorities a regulation-making power which the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the time to justify. He has merely said "If it is thought not to be suitable, we can rely on the elected local authorities to decide whether to use the powers."

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that no powers should ever be taken on parking? That would be inconsistent with what his own party has done. If he admits that powers are needed, surely it is reasonable that the distribution of the use of those powers should vary from one geographical part of the country to another.

Mr. Younger: I am not saying that there should be no powers. We are discussing particular powers, and I am relating my remarks to those alone.
We suggest in the new clause that there should be an appeal procedure. I am not impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's argument that where the Secretary of State is dissatisfied with a scheme of which he is informed he would be able to hold a public iuquiry. That is not the same as giving the citizen a right of appeal. I still think that my hon. Friends should support the proposal at the very least to write in an appeal procedure.
As we are taking Amendment No. 39 with the new clause, I hope that the vote that we are about to have will be taken also as a vote on the principle of the matter. That is what the amendment is all about. Therefore, the vote should also be taken about the principle.
6.15 p.m.
What we are being asked to give to the Government, to give to local authorities, are powers that have hitherto been available only within the GLC area. For all the other areas, they are new powers. Everyone who may be affected by them must realise that they are not just a lot of old powers that are being tidied up.
The previous Labour GLC administration which had the powers for some time was extraordinarily slow to make use of them. We all understand why. It was because the GLC realised that they were highly dubious and unpopular powers. Not only that; the new administration which is now firmly in control of the GLC lost no time in abandoning the abortive proposals of its predecessors. That is an eloquent demonstration of what it and its electors thought about the powers.
I do not want to take too much time, so I shall not weary the House by quoting chapter and verse, but we have a good and clear statement by Miss Shelagh Roberts, the appropriate person in the GLC, that it does not wish to have the powers. She also makes it clear that, as has not been disputed, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities does not want them, either.
It is all very well for the Minister to quote from a GLC minute, but it is more than six months old. The view expressed by Miss Roberts is much more up to date, dating no longer than two months back.

Mr. Anderson: Mr. Anderson rose—

Mr. Younger: I am sorry not to give way. I normally do so, but I do not want to take too much time on this matter.
The Secretary of State has sought to take the line that because the local authorities will be in charge, all is well. It is very touching to find a Minister in this Government saying how much he trusts the decisions of the local authorities. He should send a copy of his speech to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. She might find it most instructive to read what her colleague thinks about these matters.
I am very pleased about the right hon. Gentleman's views. I was equally pleased to hear his tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and to hear of his affection for my hon. Friend. That is not unnatural after the long Committee stage.
When new powers are produced by any Government they must be justified. No one has asked for these new powers with any conviction. No one has been

produced who says that he urgently requires them and would press the Government to introduce them.
Therefore, we are led to the conclusion that this is merely the tail-end of the Minister's own ideas for a much more severe regulation of parking, including PNR. He feels that he must press on with it because he has been thwarted in his real aim to introduce PNR, which he cannot do because it is so unpopular.
What the motorist can expect to find when he wishes to drive into a town or city centre in the future, if the powers are granted, is that a bureaucrat in the local authority concerned—the county council, or the region if it is in Scotland—will be looking at the traffic flow and saying "This is getting too much for us to handle. We shall introduce higher parking charges in these car parks, we shall regulate the length of time people may park, or we shall introduce new regulations providing that drivers must move out of a car park and cannot move back for a certain time."
It will in no way be a matter of the bureaucrats looking at traffic flows and saying "Because more people want to come into this town or city, it is our job to try to make it easier for them to do so. It is our job to provide car parking space to get them off the streets and enable them to come in and use their cars as they wish." The regulation will prevent people coming in. It will prevent them doing what they want to do and what they are naturally inclined to do—what is convenient for them. That is the Department of Transport's message to the many thousands of motorists all over the country who want to use the transport facilities that they find most convenient. We should not lightly give this power either to the Government or to the local authorities.
My right hon. and hon. Friends would be well advised to vote in favour of the new clause, because it will at least give the motorist an appeal against and an opportunity to have a go at the local authority if he thinks that it is oppressing him. I hope that, in spirit at any rate, the vote will also be taken as a vote against the whole principle of trying to restrict the motorist in the form of parking that is most convenient to him.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

Division No. 214]
AYES
[6.20 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Nott, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Onslow, Cranley


Alison, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gray, Hamish
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (Workington)


Awdry, Daniel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Parkinson, Cecil


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Percival, Ian


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Hannam, John
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Benyon, W.
Haselhurst, Alan
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, Rt Hon James


Biffen, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Body, Richard
Hicks, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemplown)
Hodgson, Robin
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brittan, Leon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhodes, James R.


Brooke, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Ridsdale, Julian


Bryan, Sir Paul
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Buck, Antony
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Budgen, Nick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Burden, F. A.
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Sir Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sainsbury, Tim


Carlisie, Mark
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Nicholas


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Channon, Paul
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Churchill, W. S.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shepherd, Colin


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Silvester, Fred


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Cockcroft, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cope, John
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Costain, A. P.
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Crouch, David
Macfarlane, Neil
Speed, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
MacGregor, John
Spence, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Drayson, Burnaby
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sproat, Iain


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stainton, Keith


Durant, Tony
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Elliott, Sir William
Mather Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fell, Anthony
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mills, Peter
Wakeham, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miscampbell, Norman
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Moate, Roger
Wall, Patrick


Fox, Marcus
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fry, Peter
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wells, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)


Gardiner, Edwards (S Fylde)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Younger, Hon George


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mudd, David



Glyn, Dr Alan
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goober, Rt Hon Joseph
Nelson, Anthony
Sir George Young and


Goodhart, Philip
Newton, Tony
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Allaun, Frank
Atkinson, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Bates, Alf
Boardman, H.


Ashley, Jack
Bean, R. E.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Ashton, Joe
Beith, A. J.
Boothroyd, Miss Betty

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 238.

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Heffer, Eric S.
Pardoe, John


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hooson, Emlyn
Park, George


Bradley, Tom
Horam, John
Parker, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Parry, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Huckfield, Les
Penhaligon, David


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, William (Rugby)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hunter, Adam
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Canavan, Dennis
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cant, R. B.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn


Clemitson, Ivor
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rooker, J. W.


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Ryman, John


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sandelson, Neville


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sever, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Russell
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cronin, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David
Silverman, Julius


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Steel, Rt Hon David


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Loyden, Eddie
Stott, Roger


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Doig, Peter
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dormand, J. D.
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dunnett, Jack
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Edge, Geoff
Madden, Max
Tierney, Sydney


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Magee, Bryan
Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon
Tinn, James


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tomlinson, John


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tuck, Raphael


Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, L. R. (likeston)
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mendelson, John
Watkins, David


Ford, Ben
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Forrester, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mitchell, Austin
Whitehead, Philip


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Gould, Bryan
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Gourlay, Harry
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Graham, Ted
Noble, Mike
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Oakes, Gordon
Woodall, Alec


Grant, John (Islington C)
Ogden, Eric
Wool, Robert


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglasworth, Ian


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ovenden, John



Hardy, Peter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Padley, Walter
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Peter Snape.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause No. 3

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY OF BRITISH RAIL

'Any sums provided under section 10 of this Act shall be payable on condition—

(a) That the British Railways Board provide separate accounts of their different businesses on a basis acceptable to the Department of Transport, such accounts to begin with effect from 1980, and
(b) That the British Railways Board provide an annual statement of productivity within British Rail to the Secretary of State who shall lay such statement before both Houses of Parliament'.—[Mr. Norman Fowler.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment (a), in paragraph (a), after 'business', insert 'regions and principal services'.

Mr. Fowler: The issues raised in this clause are twofold. The first relates to separate accounts for British Rail's services and businesses and the second to productivity. Both are central to the policy of British Rail and both were dealt with in depth in Committee.
There is a great measure of agreement among all Members about the importance of the railway industry. We Conservatives want to ensure that there is a great future for that industry. Therefore, we welcome the steps taken by Peter Parker and his Board to improve the financial position of British Rail. We believe that the Government and most important, the public have a right to far more information on British Rail than is now provided.
Peter Parker has spoken of the contract between the Government and British Rail. He is envisaging British Rail entering into an agreement with the Government to provide services which cannot be met out of fares. Clearly, there are other ways in which that idea can be expressed. The essential concept of the contract is acceptable and attractive to hon. Members on both sides of the House, provided—and only provided—that the contract is as specific as possible. What is not acceptable is a system of blanket support for the railway system which does not distinguish between the costs of the different businesses provided

by British Rail and the costs of commuter and Inter-City services.
The public have a right to know how their money is being used—and that money is still being provided by the public in substantial quantities. In this Bill we are providing substantial amounts of public money for British Rail. We must also remember that even last year, when some headlines told of a British Rail profit of about £60 million, a total of over £360 million was provided to operate passenger services alone. Therefore, it is not a profit in the normally understood way.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Inter-City services may well show a substantial profit, whereas commuter services show a substantial loss? Is he suggesting that those who use the commuter services should pay more because those services are losing money compared with the Inter-City services?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has a great knowledge of the subject, but in this instance he is mistaken. We are asking for more information about the costs of services. How we use that information takes us into another realm of activity, but it is vital for any Government, of whatever political complexion, to have available the maximum amount of financial information.
The reasons for having separate accounts are not simply reasons of public policy. They vitally affect the rail passenger, who has a right to know what services cost—none more so than the commuter. This point was made strongly by the Price Commission when the Government asked it to examine British Rail. It said:
Any further discrimination against London and the South East in subsequent fares increases would be difficult to justify until improved cost analysis enables a clearer view to be taken of appropriate objectives in the balance of revenue as between London and the South East and the rest of the system.
The simple and now much more accepted point, therefore, is that the public should have more information about the costs of individual services.
The question whether there should be a system of separate accounts is crucial. We have consistently argued for it. Initially, British Rail resisted the idea


as unnecessary; the network was considered indivisible. That is no longer so. British Rail accepts that the accounts of the railways can be broken down and into which major businesses they would be broken down.
There are mainly six business sectors—Inter-City; London and South-East area services; Passenger Transport Executive services; other country services; freight and parcels.
The only remaining dispute is how the accounts should be presented. British Rail previously used the system of cost allocation which is used by every other major railway system. In the last few years it has developed the avoidable cost system, set out in some detail in a pamphlet earlier this year. I have always believed that that overrated the difficulties of the original system.
The important thing is not necessarily what accounting system should be used but, first, that there should be some yardstick for measuring performance and, secondly that that yardstick should be produced as soon as possible for the benefit of the Government and the public. That is the purpose of the first part of the new clause.
The second part concerns productivity. Substantial improvements have been made over the last 15 years. The railway unions have a fair point when they say that that improvement has not been as widely recognised as it could be. The total work force fell from 477,000 in 1963 to 231,000 in 1976. I pay tribute to the industry and the unions for that achievement.
6.45 p.m.
However, the importance of high productivity, on the railways as in many other transport industries, cannot be over-emphasised. About two-thirds of operating costs on the railways is made up of wages and salaries. It must follow that high productivity is the goal of the industry. That is not a controversial or party point. It has been emphasised by the chairman of British Rail, who has described productivity as the rock on which the future of the railways must be built. The same point was made in British Rail's response to the consultative document on transport—one of British Rail's most significant responses.
British Rail said:

The opportunities for further staff reductions are wide-ranging. The possibilities up to the end of 1981 have been carefully evaluated on the basis of present business plans and the results are detailed in the manpower support paper. In total, these envisage a gross manpower reduction of some 40,000, provided that the changes can be successfully negotiated with the trade unions. Clearly, this programme of productivity improvement and any other major changes ensuing from the current Policy Review cannot be executed without the wholehearted co-operation of unions, management and staff.
It should be emphasised that that will be achieved not by mass redundancies but by a combination of wastage and control of recruitment.
One would therefore like to know what progress has been made towards that goal—which I understand is accepted by both sides of the House—in the two years that have elapsed since that statement.

Mr. Walter Johnson: It is not accepted by the unions.

Mr. Fowler: That is an interesting comment from the hon. Member, but I understand that it is the Government's stated policy. If not, I hope that the Secretary of State will make that clear. The important thing with productivity—that is the importance of this part of the new clause—is that we know what progress is made year by year in improving it.
The new clause is not intended to be hostile to British Rail. We hope that the Government can accept it. Both separate accounts and better productivity are vital. On both, the public and Parliament have a right to be fully informed.

Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford): I wonder why a song and dance is made about British Rail's productivity, when its report for 1977 shows that its productivity has increased over the years. Further, it compares favourable with European experience. More important, British Rail starts with a handicap and at a disadvantage compared with road transport.
Road transport in effect receives a large subsidy from the Government because heavy lorries do not pay their full track costs. The chairman of British Rail, Mr. Peter Parker, has focused attention on this matter by pointing out that some heavy lorries which do 100,000 miles or more a year pay £5,000 each less than their track costs, while if we look at the Government's recent White Paper we see that it


appears that the average under-payment of track costs by heavy lorries is £900 per lorry per year, which for 69,000 lorries comes to more than £62 million. That is nothing more or less than a subsidy to road transport, yet from this year on, British Rail will get no support whatever for freight.
Therefore, before we require more productivity statements by British Rail, can we not obtain an undertaking from the Government that the gap will be closed and lorries made to pay their full track costs? Only then will British Rail start without its present handicap, and on an equal footing with road transport. In an interview in The Times on Monday, Mr. Parker talked of how we can avoid tangling our roads. He said:
It's no longer a joke. There's about 40,000,000 tons of traffic at least we ought to win and I think we can win it.
Why can we not help British Rail to win by ironing out that discrepancy between road and rail?

Mr. Moate: I understand that with New Clause No. 3 we are discussing Amendment (a), in my name. Perhaps I can explain the purpose of the amendment which states:
after 'business', insert 'regions and principal services'.
I am asking that British Rail should not only provide separate accounts for its different businesses but should also, on a basis acceptable to the Secretary of State—I emphasise that—publish separate accounts for the "regions and principal services". I emphasise the qualification that this should be on a basis acceptable to the Secretary of State.
By definition, that would mean that it would have to be on a basis agreed between British Rail and the Secretary of State. That means that one would have a sensible formula worked out between the various parties to ensure that one was not asking for foolish information or information that would necessarily be damaging. Instead, one would basically be asking for much more information than is at presently given.
I also emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) that in no way should the new clause be construed as hostile to the interests of British Rail.

I go to the opposite extreme and say that it was intended to be helpful. I believe that it would be helpful. In saying that I am only echoing the words used by Mr. Peter Parker in the article in The Times on Monday, to which the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) has already referred. The words that I wish to quote from that article, which seem to be wholly in line with the philosophy of the new clause, are:
One of the things I am trying to do is to explain how we make up our sums in railways so people can really follow the game
We want the public to follow the game. I want my commuters to follow the game, so that they can understand the problems facing British Rail, the reasons behind fare increases and, generally, have a sense of participation in our railway system and railway problems rather than the sense of alienation which has pervaded the atmosphere of railway discussions in recent years. In his very impressive article, Mr. Parker went on to say, with regard to railway problems:
This problem will be best solved by exposing it, explaining it, bringing all the vested interests of commuter travel together and beginning to produce a much more co-ordinated approach.
He said later in the same article:
That means also explaining to them
—that is, the commuter—
that it is one of the most expensive parts of our system".
By "it", Mr. Parker meant the South-East. It seems to me that Mr. Peter Parker was enunciating a philosophy which has gained broad acceptance, perhaps not by the unions in their public statements but by the Government and the Select Committee. General speaking, there is now a new mood that we should open up the books and have a greater publication of the vital information relating to certain services so that the public can share in the decision-making and understand the problems and opportunities that exist.
So far the consensus, perhaps with one or two exceptions, has related to the publication of accounts for the separate businesses. As I understand it, British Rail intends to do this. I see no harm in imposing an obligation upon it to do what I expect it will do anyway, namely, publish accounts for its separate businesses—the freight business, parcels,


Inter-City services, the commuter services, and so on.
I should like to go a bit further, but only with the intention of being helpful. Let me quote the example of the South-East of England. My constituency has about 4,000 regular commuters. It has experienced all the problems associated with commuter fares and poor services, especially in recent years. It would be helpful to those commuters and to British Rail if the figures were published. I do not know what the figures for the South-East division would show, but I expect that they would bear out what we have been told so often by British Rail, that the South-East division is probably one of the most intensive railway systems in the world and that one is faced with major problems of the deterioration and replacement of equipment. By demonstrating those problems openly and by removing the suspicion, on some of the more crowded lines, that those lines are making a profit and that people are being severely penalised, one would reduce the sense of hostility and alienation which so often exists, and one would create a greater sense of co-operation between the commuter and the railways.
I believe it to be very important to try to secure a better atmosphere. I had the impression that the management of the South-East division was under a constant strain, which adds to its burdens, as a result of bad relations with its customers. If one could remove those bad relations one would assist British Rail.
There has been a noticeable change in the position of our railways in the last 12 months. It seems to me that there has been a definite improvement in that position. I pay tribute to management as a whole, and not just to Mr. Peter Parker, because I am sure that he would be the first to accept that the improving trends of recent months could have resulted only from decisions taken some time before. However, I believe that Mr. Parker has produced a healthy new atmosphere of co-operation.
In the past the railways have adopted a defensive attitude. I can understand that, because they have been attacked right, left and centre by so many of us, I think rightly. But whereas that criticism was nearly always regarded as destructive, it was always intended to be constructive. Mr. Parker and his board

are now saying "We understand those complaints. We accept that they are justified and we are all now in this together trying to resolve them". I believe that there has been a noticeable change in atmosphere. We should give credit to all those who have taken part in it. However, it is a fragile situation, which could change overnight by a sudden deterioration in industrial relations or a series of strikes. We know that the situation is always fairly difficult between the railway unions, but let us hope that does not happen.
The situation could also change if there were a sudden increase in fares resulting from large wage increases. That is also a major problem. Nevertheless, let us for the moment accept, with gratitude, the fact that the situation seems to be improving. I want that improvement to carry on. I believe it would be helpful to that general atmosphere of co-operation, as well as the necessity to get a more widespread acceptance of the need for capital investment, if the problems were opened up.

Mr. Walter Johnson: The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to a situation in which, for example, commuter fares would be shown as a separate item. Cannot he see that there is a danger in that? For example, if the Inter-City line shows a substantial profit and the commuter line shows a substantial loss, those who use the Inter-City line will ask why they should subsidise the commuter lines in the South-East. Surely the hon. Gentleman is defeating his own argument. Frankly, I think it is a very dangerous step to take.

Mr. Moate: I think that the hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the situation. We are faced, as we know, with the fact of life that there are heavy subsidies for the railways. One could argue that philosophically the Conservative Opposition have argued for the ending of all subsidies. However, I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that that has not been the argument which has been put forward in recent years with regard to railways.
I suggest that we are now approaching a consensus about the need for some form of public support. I say that reluctantly, but it seems to me that that is what we have arrived at. That has been expressed by Mr. Parker and the railways and is


supported by the Conservative Opposition in the description of the contract. Therefore, there is now acceptance of the need for some form of public contract whereby public revenue will be provided to sustain a basic railway system.
I do not think that the hon. Member need fear that there will be major problems about passengers on the profitable Inter-City lines resenting any payments which they make to support commuters.
7.0 p.m.
Having accepted that there has to be this contract, I suggest that we have to find some other means of securing improvements in efficiency and productivity. There has to be some other discipline, because if we give a blank cheque to any organisation, the imperatives for improving efficiency are removed. British Rail has accepted that manpower could be reduced by 40,000 by 1981. Are we not entitled to find out just how successful British Rail and the unions are in achieving that manpower reduction? We are entitled to have that yardstick of productivity to which British Rail and the Government have referred reported upon every year in the railway accounts. If that does not happen, I do not see how we can impose any discipline.
It is not we who are saying that it is the yardstick of progress or of efficiency; it is British Rail itself. Let me quote from a management brief from British Rail last year, in which it said:
'So clearly there is no soft option for any of us and our productivity progress will be a yardstick by which our treatment by the Government and the country will be determined in years to come.
If that is the yardstick, are we not entitled to have some measure of the progress that is being made towards that end in the annual report of the British Rail? After all, it should be proud of it. If British Rail has achievements in productivity, we ask only that it proclaims them in the annual accounts. All that this means is that we are asking for better, more open means of public accounting, and I cannot accept that that is a disadvantage to anyone.
As for the need for capital investment, I do not believe that in the arguments about subsidies and efficiency we have yet begun to grasp the major problems of renewing its capital equipment that

British Rail will face in years ahead. How are we to gain a better public understanding and, perhaps, a better political understanding of the size of that problem? We can do it by opening up the accounts. We can do it with the South-East, for example, by explaining how much is needed to replace ageing equipment and by showing how little contribution is coming from fares. By opening up the accounts, we can have a better informed discussion of these matters. I stress again that it is for a healthier railway system that I argue when I put forward propositions such as this.
On the problem of manpower reductions, just as I believe that the railways, for perfectly understandable reasons, have been starved of capital investment, I also believe that railway levels of pay are far too low and that at some stage we shall have to come to grips with that problem in the context of an under-invested, heavily subsidised, over-manned industry.
Casting my mind forward two, three or four years to a time when there may be a shortage of labour and much higher pay scales, I envisage that it will be very difficult for British Rail to attract manpower to fulfil many of the unsocial jobs with inconvenient hours which make up the railway system. It is quite possible that we shall get down to the manning levels that British Rail envisages, whether by accident or design. But we can maintain an efficient railway system only if we get the necessary capital investment to take up that reduction in manpower.
All these are problems. We are making progress in solving them. By bringing the passenger much more into the picture and letting him share the game, I believe that we shall contribute to creating a healthier railway system in the future.

Mr. Tom. Bradley: I have been listening to and taking part in debates on British Rail since we first discussed the Beeching Report in this House in 1963. One of the prominent participants in that debate was my right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers), who is now Secretary of State for Transport.
This evening, for the first time over the years, I have detected a note of better understanding and greater appreciation of the problems of the railways in the


contributions which I have heard from Opposition Members, although there are still many imperfections in their approach.
My own experience of British Rail, both as an employee many years ago and later as a trade union negotiator, has been that there is not a more open or accessible nationalised board in the country. I do not know why the Opposition complain. Only a week or two ago we had published the British Railways Board's annual report and accounts for 1977. The document is available in the Vote Office, and it deserves careful study. I am beginning to wonder whether the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has seen it. Many of the issues about which he complained are dealt with in the annual report.
I remind the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that running British Rail is a very complex and difficult business. He is right to say that 66 per cent. of its expenditure is taken up in labour costs, and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) is correct in saying that from time to time there are difficulties in industrial relations on British Rail. However, the hon. Gentleman should not anticipate them, as he seemed to do. I got the impression that he was almost tempting the situation. At present there is an atmosphere of understanding between management and the trade unions on British Rail, but frequently it is bedevilled by the interference of politicians.

Mr. Moate: The last thing that I want is to be accused of exacerbating the situation. All that I sought to do was to emphasise the fragility of the economic situation. I thought that I expressed the hope that we would not see any further friction between the unions. I am delighted to hear the hon. Member's assertion that matters are in such a healthy state.

Mr. Bradley: I echo that, and I echo it in the general sense, because I hope that we shall not have further friction in any section of our society, let alone on British Rail.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield acknowledged the importance of the industry and indicated that he was interested in seeing that it had a secure future. He made great play with the words "contract with Government"

which Peter Parker has enunciated from time to time. However, he went on mistakenly to suggest that the railways received total blanket support from the Government. I must remind him that the days of total blanket support are over. In 1976, this Government pegged British Rail's support level to its 1975 figure, with an allowance for inflation. Even that limit was made tougher last year by a cut of £10 million, yet last year's performance beat that figure by £27 million. All these facts are available in the annual report. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield should read it.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I did not say that there was total blanket support. I said that we should move away from a system of blanket support which substantially still existed. Of course, it is moving. But if the hon. Member insists on taking this line and seeking to challenge what I said, is he therefore challenging what the Price Commission said about the question of costs?

Mr. Bradley: I agree with the hon. Member at once that we should move away from a system of blanket support. It pleases no one in British Rail or outside, and certainly it does not help morale in the industry if railway staff read of vast sums of public money sustaining their activities. If that is what the hon. Member meant When he used the term, I accept it at once and welcome a moving away from blanket support. British Rail is moving away from blanket support. That is a matter of fact.
The hon. Gentleman then dealt with the question of performance and productivity, which are difficult to register and indicate in a service industry. Railwaymen cannot signal more trains than are running at a given time.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: Since I am going to refer to another service industry, perhaps I should declare an interest in it. To say that productivity is difficult to measure in a service industry is nonsense. One has only to look at the output per man. This is the commonest measure of productivity and is widely used in food distribution and in all forms of distribution. Those industries, including the co-operative movement, will not be so efficient if that measure were not used. It is equally applicable to British Rail.

Mr. Bradley: The clerical union which I once led in British Rail always found it difficult to join the other unions and the management in discussing the preparation of a productivity scheme for clerical workers. I make the point again that operating railwaymen cannot signal more trains than are running at a given time and are scheduled to run.
There ought to be a yardstick, if one can be prepared. It is a labour-intensive industry, but there is a great deal of loose and careless talk about overmanning. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) should obtain facts and figures showing how much overtime and rest-day working is taking place in British Rail which, if it were not being worked, would cause the system to grind to a standstill. This is no indication of overmanning, although in certain areas of the country there may well be room for improvement.
The sensitive issue of the reduction of 40,000 staff by 1980 has been mentioned. That may or may not be achieved. It should not be imagined that the success of British Rail could be measured by the number of staff that it is disgorging from its system. We should have a more sophisticated approach to the difficulties. Peter Parker is the most inspiring, best-informed leader that the industry has had within my lifetime. His report for this year is informative, forward-looking and encouraging. I detected a note of acknowledgment of those features in what Conservative Members have said.
We must recognise that our railway system is open and operating 168 hours a week, and more than 18,000 trains run every working day. Over the past 10 years, a slightly lower volume of freight traffic has been carried with considerably fewer resources. Last year alone, British Rail's wagon fleet was reduced by 20,000 vehicles. Over the last two years the the staff has been further reduced by 12,000, on top of the many thousands who have been disgorged since 1948.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that one of the disappointing aspects of the rate at which staff are being disgorged from the railways is that the reduction in numbers appears overwhelming to apply to the trades that are responsible for cleaning, and so on? On some regions there are

not enough people to clean the railway carriages successfully, because that is the area in which there is the greatest turnover of labour and in which it is easier to get rid of people by voluntary agreement.

Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful point, which I hope will be noted in the proper quarter.
Negotiations with the unions on a new approach to the question of performance and productivity are about to begin. It will be self-financing, and I think that it will be successful. I hope that Conservative Members will encourage this approach and not denigrate it. I am sure that in next year's annual report and accounts of the British Railways Board, and those for the years thereafter, we shall obtain as much information about that progress as we need, without going into the requirements of the new clause.

Mr. Robert Adley: It is pleasing to be able to take part in a debate which has been a constructive attempt to look at the problems of the railway industry. It is sometimes assumed, erroneously, that because Conservative Members criticise certain aspects of nationalised industries, there is an in-built hostility in the Conservative Party towards nationalised industries. That is totally false. It is true that, philosophically, the Conservative Party is opposed to the nationalisation of industries for its own sake. But when an industry is nationalised and has been nationalised for some time, the only interest of Conservative Members is to try to improve that industry for the benefit of the public and the taxpayer.
7.15 p.m.
There are people in the nationalised industries who equate criticism of the principle of more nationalisation with total hostility to everything that is nationalised. There is all the difference in the world between the two arguments. We are not sycophantic, as Labour Members sometimes are, about everything nationalised. If we were, we should be doing less than our duty as Members of Parliament. Equally, we are not hostile for the sake of hostility.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who is, sadly, leaving the Chamber, knows that he and I share an


interests in British Aerospace to see that the industry is protected as well as it can be and that what is done for that industry is in the interests of those who work in it and in the interests of the taxpayer. The same thing applies to British Rail.

Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that we on this side of the House feel that the motive behind the new clause is that you can see which are the profitable sectors of British Rail so that you can flog them off to your friends if and when you are returned to power?

Mr. Adley: The reference to "your friends" is a matter which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might like to deal with. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was meaning your friends, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): My friends have not got the money to buy any sector.

Mr. Adley: If they had, it is doubtful whether they would want to buy those areas of the railway system that the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) identified. That is the sort of unhelpful, callous, uncouth comment that does not do the hon. Member justice. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, before he goes to bed tonight, when he kneels to say his prayers, will have the heart to say "Perhaps tomorrow I shall be less unkind about the motives of others." His attribution is not the motive behind the new clause.
I add my tribute to what Peter Parker is doing. He brings to British Rail a wind of change in his approach to the job, which is wholly good. Whilst I do not expect to carry all my hon. Friends with me, I think that the current television advertising campaign which British Rail is undertaking is excellent. It will help to improve the image of British Rail. I hope that it will encourage those who work for British Rail to feel a pride in the job that they are doing.
The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) mentioned the comparisons between the cost to the British taxpayer of the British Rail system and the cost to the taxpayers of other European countries, of their rail systems. It is good to be aware of these facts.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend might be right to admire what looks an effective piece of advertising in public relations. Plenty of people in my constituency would like just a tiny part of that budget to be spent on cleaning carriage windows, let alone the image of British Rail.

Mr. Adley: I can well understand that point of view. I am dealing with the efforts that the chairman of British Rail is making not only to improve the image of the railways but to improve the relationship between the railways and their customers and the railways and their staff. In the long term it is vitally important that this should be done. If as a result of the advertising campaign a new mood of confidence is generated in the railway industry, that will be a price that, in time, will be seen to have been worth paying.
The hon. Member for Newton accused my colleagues of having false motives in the tabling of the new clause, but within the accounts of British Rail, some sections, such as Sealink, are already separately accounted for and certainly when a section of the industry is in a competitive area, such as the shipping division, it is right that its accounts should be organised and shown separately, in fairness to those who are operating competitive services.
Our reasons for wanting to identify the profitable and non-profitable areas of British Rail have nothing to do with wanting, as the hon. Member for Newton suggested, to flog off parts of the system. If it is shown that the line from Charing Cross to Faversham is unprofitable, no one in his right mind would suggest that it should be flogged off. That is so ridiculous that it cannot be considered seriously.
Some lines are profitable, but those that are unprofitable should be broken down into those that are socially necessary and those that are not. If there are lines that are considered to be socially necessary by the management of British Rail and the Government, public money will be made available to support them, but it is surely only fair to the taxpayer that this information should be made available openly and publicly. We are seeking better public accountability. The new clause would help the management


to do its job better and it would be fair to the taxpayer. On that basis, I support it.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I have listened carefully to the three speeches of Conservative Members, but I am no wiser why we should accept the new clause or what are the purposes underlying it.
I was particularly taken aback by the specific illustration—the only one so far—of the type of information that they are seeking that was given by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). He said that we should be entitled to have an annual figure of manning on British Rail so that we know whether it is achieving its targets for the reduction of staff.
Any hon. Member who wishes to know the manning level of British Rail in any year has only to look up the annual report or submit a Question, as I have done many times, and he will get the exact figure. If there were ever a suggestion by British Rail that it would not announce how many employees it had, there would be a riot at Unity House. The unions would be the first to complain. We are sufficiently confident that we can force British Rail, if that is the appropriate word, to disgorge the figures on staff that we would not dream of laying a statutory obligation on it to produce figures that we are all aware of and can all easily obtain.
I am particularly puzzled by the new clause because both points mentioned in it have been catered for in Government policy statements in recent months. In the first part of the new clause there is a demand that we should have publication of an annual statement of the returns for different sections of British Rail. Only eight months ago, the Government published their response to the Select Committee's report on British Rail. They gave a plain undertaking:
It has therefore been decided that the breakdown should show the forecasts for the current year of the direct expenses and earnings for each of the passenger business sectors (Inter-City, London and South East, PTE services and other provincial services) on which the claim is based.
Later, it said,
in due course improvements to the system should make it possible for the Board to make

an assessment of the actual costs and earnings of each of the business sectors".
The Government have already accepted the basic purpose of paragraph (a). We have a commitment that we shall get the figures.
It is only two months since we had the White Paper on nationalised industries and in that the Government said that they had
asked each industry, in consultation with its sponsoring department, to select a number of key performance indicators, including valid international comparisons, and to publish them prominently in their annual report".
Later the White Paper refers to
some indicators common to most including, for example, labour productivity.
There, again, we have had a Government statement covering the other subsection of the new clause.
It cannot be that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) is unaware of these commitments and statements. Since we have been urged not to be unkind in the debate, I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley). I am quite confident that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has read the annual report of British Rail and the White Papers to which I referred. There can be no hon. Member who ever goes into the Library, whether strolling in after dinner or while hurrying out after the Adjournment has been called, who could fail to have been impressed by the silent, motionless figure of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, in his shirt sleeves, bent over the largest pile of blue books in the Library. Clearly, he was aware of the White Papers and the Government commitments.
Why is the sole new clause relating to British Rail that we are likely to debate at any length couched in this form of demanding further information and placing a statutory obligation on British Rail to provide it? The answer is simple. It is a ruse that will be known to any of us who has served on a local authority or any other public body. When one wants to avoid committing oneself to a painful policy decision, one calls for further information or demands a further report from the officers.
It was interesting that when my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Johnson) persistently interrupted hon.


Members opposite to ask what they would do with the information, how they would change the subsidy, whether Inter-City travellers would have to pay more to subsidise commuters or whether commuter lines would be closed, the hon. Members consistently avoided giving a response. The demand for further information is to paper over the fact that they do not have a policy to do anything with that information once they have it.

Mr. Adley: Has the hon. Gentleman ever occupied a managerial position in industry? Does he believe that he could do his job properly without knowing the profit or lack of profit in an individual plant, factory, hotel or railway line? Does he not believe that when we are responsible, as the House is ultimately, for hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, it is right that we should know what is going on and make our decisions accordingly?

Mr. Cook: Nothing has messed up the nationalised industries more than the idea that politicians should be in the executive position of running those industries. The people in the managerial position to run British Rail are those on the board of British Rail and those who are answerable to it. They have perfectly adequate access to the figures they need to take policy decisions. The decisions that we need to take are those related to the subsidy. Hon. Members opposite have failed to explain how they would use the additional information that they are demanding to alter the distribution of that subsidy. That is what they have to answer.
The debate is unfortunate because it comes after the most comprehensive report we have seen from British Rail. It is also the first readable report that I have seen. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East referred to a number of figures from the report. I do not want to go over them again, but I should like to take the House back to the report of the previous year, for 1976, which was particularly interesting because it contained an international comparison of productivity of British Rail. Not only did it show that its productivity can stand comparison—and I shall come back to the figures—but it showed conclusively that as a proportion of its total income,

British Rail receives less in Government aid than any other European railway system.
In 1976, British Rail received 30 per cent. of its income in State aid. French railways received 44 per cent. of their income in State aid, German railways received 51 per cent. and the Italian railways received 55 per cent. Of all the major European railway networks, British Rail receives the lowest State aid as a proportion of its income.
Figures in the parallel table of productivity include figures for productivity per man. British Rail employs fewer men per track-mile and fewer men per locomotive-unit than any of the other European countries included in that table. We also find that passenger-kilometres in British Rail are higher per member of the staff and per pound of Government subsidy. British Rail can be proud of this comparison. It can hold its head up high as the comparison reflects great credit on the British Railways system.
7.30 p.m.
Of course, if one takes the separate freight figures it is a different picture. That takes us back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) in his earlier comments about intermodal competition between railways and heavy lorries. Successive Governments of both parties have chosen to channel freight through heavy lorries rather than the railways. They have chosen to do that, avoiding many of the ways of managing the market as is done in Continental countries, and as a result of that we have far more freight on the roads than on the railways.
Having chosen that as a policy we cannot turn around and say that we are outraged and disappointed to see that British Rail's productivity in shifting that freight is lower that that of Continental countries which use a whole battery of devices in order to encourage freight to travel by rail.
I turn to the issue of manning. The debate had not gone very far before it became clear that it was essentially a debate on manning, or as the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) put it, over-manning. Nobody who has looked at the figures for the past 30 years can fail to see that the unions within British Rail have consistently recognised the case


for reductions in staff wherever these can be sensibly and economically achieved.
In recent years there has been a specific agreement between the unions and British Rail under which 7,000 jobs a year have been shed. Yet at the end of that process we find that hours worked in some of the sectors in which jobs have been cut away have remained the same. As a result of some men being freed from employment and of some posts not being filled, other men—those who stay on—have to work longer hours. In the guards section, for example, 68 per cent. of rest days are worked in order to keep the trains moving. This is inevitable because what we see at present is pressure on British Rail to reduce manning and at the same time pressure to reduce investment. One cannot increase productivity unless one is getting the money to produce the equipment with which one can increase productivity.
Given that money no one in British Rail will resist consequent reductions in manpower. In my constituency in the last 18 months 150 jobs in signal boxes have disappeared entirely. This occurred without the least resistance from the union because it recognised that investment in the new signalling system was sensible, was in the long-term interest of British Rail and made the railways more competitive. Given investment, the unions will accept and welcome this process.
To achieve greater productivity British Rail must have money. It must also have the trust and confidence of this House. We shall not demonstrate that trust and confidenece by laying on British Rail a statutory obligation to produce figures and information which we do not lay on any other nationalised industry. For this reason the House can best demonstrate its trust and confidence by kicking the new clause out into the Central Lobby.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The last sentence of the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), whose views on British Rail I so often respect, makes me rather puzzled. I wonder why, when we are about to give compensation to British Rail
for periods after the end of 1978, exceed £1,750 million or such greater sum not exceeding £3,000 million as may be specified by Order in Council.

he should feel that it is wrong for the Opposition to require British Rail to give a specific breakdown of how it will spend taxpayers' money. It is difficult to understand.
If I had been persuaded that Mr. Peter Parker, who is rapidly becoming canonised by the House of Commons, had managed to solve the problems of British Rail and was giving the information which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has requested so often and which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has also called for, I would not support my hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight if we do divide the House.
But in the era of Mr. Peter Parker we have received a booklet called "Measuring Cost and Profitability in British Rail" published this year. In this rather strange publication—it is somewhat anodyne to say the least—it says:
In industries with less complicated operational and cost structures the decision to engage in or continue an activity is made against the simple criterion of profitability—defined in the usual sense of being the margin available for reserves or distribution after meeting all expenses. A simple rule of this kind cannot exist for railway traffics.
Why not? What is so special about the railways that makes it impossible for ordinary men and women who provide their hard-earned income for that organisation to know how the money is being spent? There is nothing special about British Rail or any other railway system which puts it above the reach of a good accountant. Therefore we have the right before we hand over vast sums of money to know just how it is to be spent.
Mr. Parker has said that British Rail is meeting its financial objectives. In a little documents called "Report'77" he said:
Despite continued national recession we met our financial objectives. In the realm of passenger business we beat the contract price agreed with Government by £27 million.
Hooray. But what was the contract price? When was it agreed and what was it when it was agreed? Was it agreed in such a way that British Rail can make that proud claim? That is an invidious thing for me to say and I do not for one moment believe that Mr. Parker would stoop to that level. But just the same, I have three figures in front of me about the amount of Government


support that British Rail has had—one from a Government document, produced by the Ministry of Transport and the other two from the British Rail document.
I am an absolute ignoramus about financial matters so perhaps I have misunderstood the figures and what they purport to tell me. However, in the Government's response to the First Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Session 1976–77, HC 305—"The Role of British Railways in Public Transport"—for the first time there is set out the British Rail Board's forecast passenger railway business sector costs and the support requirement for 1977. On page 22 there is a figure under Table 3 of Government support of £355·9 million. If we leave out the PTE income, the sum is £392·3 million. That is the Department of Transport's figure for 1977.
In the current edition of British Rail's annual report the sum given is £364 million. In "Report'77" support payments are put at £360·8 million. I do not know how the figures are arrived at, but it seems that anyone trying to discover the exact support figure given to British Rail in the past year will be faced with a difficult task. He will wonder whether British Rail made £27 million or some quite different figure. Therefore, when my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield says, as he does through the new clause, that we require to know how British Rail spends its money, he asks for no less than the minimum that any responsible Opposition, let alone Government, have a duty to require.
I hope that the Secretary of State will tell me and the House exactly which figure we should believe, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go one stage further. If Mr. Peter Parker is to say that British Rail met its financial objective, will the right hon. Gentleman say at what figure the contract will be put for 1978–79? Will he stand by the sum of £403 million? Is he prepared to tell the House that whatever happens British Rail will receive no more in support than £403 million? If he is not prepared to do that, the contract is variable, the support is variable and presumably the profit is a profitable loss, or some further strange anomaly that can be devised by government for nationalised industries to persuade the general public that all is better than in fact it is.
Although my comments appear to be strictures against British Rail, I have genuinely sought to ascertain the support figure and I do not know which figure to believe. However, this I do know, that as Mr. Peter Parker and his team seek to make more information available to the public—they have said that they want to do so—and as the Government press them to make more information available—they have said that they want to do so—we shall demand a more scrupulous and precise form of accountancy than we have seen hitherto. We shall not be convinced by booklets that British Rail's profitability is a matter that is so complicated and so difficult to calculate that no reasonable man may expect to be provided with that information.
I shall make one or two brief comments about productivity. I share the belief of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield that we have a right to know how British Rail is doing. I quote from some questions that I asked Mr. Rose, who is the personnel director of British Rail, when he apeared before the Select Committee in March 1978. I asked him two questions. I asked him whether he could envisage any improvement in the number of hours that drivers actually drove in the eight-hour day and whether there had been an improvement on the present three and a half hours actually driven within the driver's working day. In other words, for well over 50 per cent. of their driving day drivers are not driving trains.
Mr. Rose replied:
We can certainly let you have the up-to-date figures. Again, this is another example of the way in which we are working towards better utilisation of train crews. It does depend on better means of preparing rosters and train crew workings and, of course, we are working in this context on some computer-aided programme preparation which will give us a further boost in this direction.

Mr. Johnson Smith: What an answer!

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend is right. We are not talking about brand new technology. Trains have been chugging around the country for 100 years or more. It does not take 25 years for British Rail to find out a bit more about roster workings and how to get rather more than three and a half hours out of an eight-hour day.
7.45 p.m.
I pressed Mr. Rose further and asked him whether we could look forward to something much more considerable. He replied:
We would estimate if we could get between 4½ and 5 hours we would be making a very big improvement and a very worthwhile improvement.
Hear, hear, so say all of us. However, until British Rail is getting 50 per cent. of a driver's working day spent actually driving we have a responsibility to ask about productivity in British Rail.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: There is one factor that Opposition Members frequently forget when they speak about increasing productivity. Productivity would increase much more quickly if the existing equipment, railway lines and locomotives, were used to a greater extent. If we use fewer trains it often means that drivers are stranded and there is no train to take them back. In that situation the number of hours spent driving per day will fall. If vie increase the number of locomotives working on the system, the existing drivers will be used for a greater number of hours. Part of the difficulty is to get locomen back to their depots. If a train is cut out, the driver has to wait for a later one and his driving time is reduced.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes it clear that the business of running trains is complicated. He is right to do that. It is a specialist business. It is too easy for someone like myself to say that all sorts of improvements should be made and that we want to see improvements take place overnight. However, British Rail has had a long time to get some of the problems ironed out. Until it can persuade the House, taxpayers and passengers that it is on top of the problem, it is only right that we should demand more information from it about the way in which it spends its money and how its staff work.

Mr. Atkins: Our objection to the clause is that it begs the question. It gives the impression that if it were accepted it would help to solve British Rail's problems. In fact, it will not add one iota to the solution of the problems. It also gives the impression that existing productivity figures and existing accounts

are below the level that would be required. That is not so.
The financial assessments and forecasts of British Rail are much more stringent and severe than those, for example, for motorway projects. That was made clear in the Leitch Report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) observed.
There is an extremely detailed analysis of railway accounts. I remember that many years ago, when I was a railway clerk, it was necessary to compare all receipts in every department. They were compared with the receipts of the year before, and the year before that. Even with lavatory receipts we had to explain why the receipts for one year were lower than for another.
At that time we had to give an account of every train in the month if at the end of the month we were one shilling down. I used to reduce the lavatory receipts, as they were the only ones that were not checked. In that way I did not have to give a long and silly explanation of every train throughout the month. If we ask for too many analyses and ask too many stupid questions, we shall have to employ extra staff, and we are supposed to be considering ways of reducing British Rail's staff.
I hope that it is not the Opposition's intention, but by tabling the new clause they imply that somehow there is something lacking in British Rail. It may or may not be their old habit of bashing British Rail, of making British Rail their favourite Aunt Sally. If it is, I admire them for their sophistication, because they have used an entirely different method of bashing British Rail. It is unfortunate that they should have done it at this time because not only are British Rail's account pretty detailed; British Rail is now even trying to involve the men on the trains in its reports for 1977.
Those reports refer to some very relevant facts. For instance, when they are comparing rail freight resource productivity between 1967 and 1977, they show that the number of wagons was reduced in those 10 years by 62 per cent. They show that the number of locomotives was reduced by 41 per cent., that the number of terminals was reduced by 49 per cent., and that freight traffic was reduced by 33 per cent. There are some very impressive comparisons there.
What I am sad about—the House is not paying sufficient attention to this matter—is that the present tonnage, which was reduced in those 10 years by 17 per cent., is the lowest figure in our history. What I am concerned about is that we should increase traffic, because that is the best way to increase productivity.
The easiest way to increase the productivity of the signalman is to run more trains over his line. For the passenger locomotive driver, it is to give him 200 passengers instead of 50. For the locomen, it is to give them more locos to run and greater goods traffic to carry. That is the way to increase productivity. It will not be increased by always harping about reducing staff, particularly when criticisms of the system for not being run properly because there are not enough staff come from those people who keep asking for reductions in staff. One reason why trains are dirtier is that British Rail has been forced to employ fewer cleaning staff.
The return speeds would be greater, despite the considerable increase in speeds, if capital were provided to get the best use out of the high-speed trains. Carriage of freight would be much more efficient if we had more air-brake wagons. Productivity would increase immensely if they were carrying more goods.
Many people have been praising Peter Parker tonight, and quite rightly so. He is the only chairman of the Board I can remember who is really interested in the job. Previously one got the impression that chairmen had only an academic interest in the job. But it would be foolish—and Peter Parker would be the first to say this—to attribute the success that the railways have had over the last year to Peter Parker. He is aware of the reasons why there have been an improvement. That is why he is asking for more capital to spend on more equipment.
If hon. Members think so much of Peter Parker and what they think he has done—no doubt he has done a lot—they should take notice of what he says. He wants more capital to get more of the equipment which has increased productivity very considerably. He wants more high-speed trains and, incidentally, more electrification—British Rail is now asking for that—greater use of TOPS, more money spent on air-brake wagons and, most of all, more money spent on the

track to bring it up to a state of perfection.
Now that Freightliners has gone back to British Rail, let us give British Rail the same opportunities that the National Freight Corporation has—an opportunity, for instance, of benefiting from the Section 8 grants for rail sidings. Let us give British Rail those opportunities. It will be difficult enough, anyway.
I read in one journal that Sir Daniel Pettit was not too sad about losing Freightliners because of the enormous amount of new capital that needs to be spent on it. It would be most unfortunate if at this time, when the terminals are wearing out and we need new equipment for them, Section 8 grants were not available. If we want Freightliners to expand, we shall have to see that more terminals and more sidings are provided. If we want British Rail to have a go-ahead attitude on this matter, we should give it the opportunity of encouraging private businesses to share in the erection of new sidings. It would be a great mistake if British Rail were robbed of this opportunity.
Increasing productivity is our biggest problem, particularly in regard to British Rail freight traffic. In the past, three out of four of the old systems, the smallest being Southern Railways, relied for their profits on freight traffic. British Rail will never be free of problems unless it can increase its freight traffic.
One of the reasons why we have not increased freight traffic was given by my hon Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck). It is inconsistent of us to decide, on the one hand, that there shall be no subsidy for freight, and, on the other hand, not to implement a promise made even in the consultation document that the question of heavy goods vehicles not paying their attributable costs would be dealt with. These matters should have been dealt with at exactly the same time, particularly as at present road freight is being favoured by relatively cheap petrol. When that cheap petrol is removed, it will make competition between rail and road very difficult.
If we lose traffic now and do not see the need for retaining and increasing it because of future fuel shortages, we are being very stupid. Even Pryke and Dodgson, in "The Rail Problem", a book


generally regarded by most of us as pro-road, said that the pattern and the mode of transporting freight as between road and rail is not always related to free market forces and that for one reason or another there was a good deal of traffic that should be going by rail but which for economic reasons was not doing so.
Various reasons have been given. For instance, a declining system, such as railways, is at a disadvantage compared with a growing system, such as roads. Road freight has the advantage of impetus. There are always economies that come from growth, but that is not so with a declining industry. This trend must be arrested.
On the other hand, there is lethargy. Some traffic managers are probably not using the most efficient system. It is imperative that these problems, including that of taxation of heavy goods vehicles, are dealt with according to their attributable costs.
We shall never solve this problem unless we tackle the problem of freight. I hope that the recommendations that have been made to my right hon. Friend will be heeded and that we shall get down to the most difficult problem of all—increasing freight traffic and, through that, productivity.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Forman: I shall support as briefly as possible the new clause which was persuasively moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). My constituency contains at least 4,000 commuters in the Greater London area and I have a strong interest in the future and success of the railways. I pay a warm tribute to Mr. Peter Parker and his management and union staff for their work and achievements.
What we have been saying from this side of the House tonight is nothing revolutionary. We have said nothing to which Labour Members should take exception because it is already part of Government policy. The objectives of transparency and greater accountability are incorporated into British Rail thinking and are mentioned in its reports. The chairman of British Rail has said on a number of occasions that increased

productivity is the rock upon which the future of British Rail should be built. We should accept that this is a slightly false debate and that the main question at issue is how best to achieve our common objectives.
It is important to draw a distinction between increased productivity, which is mentioned in the new clause, of a positive kind and productivity of a negative kind. In recent years British Rail has had considerable success in increasing its productivity in the negative sense. By that I mean that the number of people working for British Rail has diminished faster than the passenger-miles or any other indicator that one might take.
That is fine and dandy, but it is an insufficient basis on which to increase British Rail's productivity. A sufficient basis would entail first, British Rail's management trying to ensure that its costs are not allowed to increase faster than its revenue. Otherwise the House knows that fares must be increased to the detriment of my constituents and others throughout the country or the quality and frequency of the services must be reduced. I have received a number of letters recently about the services in the Carshalton and Wallington area being cut back. The third leg of the tripod is greater efficiency based on a fuller and greater use of the railway system. It is upon that that I can establish the greatest area of agreement with the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins).
One wants to see more passenger-miles in the system. One wants to see sensible new investment installed as quickly as possible. I think of investment—not so much the prestige and glamour variety but that which is designed to lure more people out of their cars or off their bicycles on to the railway system to travel in conditions of comfort and efficiency. There is no doubt that increased electrification has a major role to play.
I was interested to see in the annual report the limited extent of the electrification on the national network. It is about 21 per cent. of the network. That could and should be increased for energy efficiency and other reasons up to about 80 per cent. over a long period.
I am concerned because the chances of achieving that objective will be limited so long as we have a Government, as we


now have, who are not presiding over a significant rate of economic growth. As a result of that, extra capital investment is not forthcoming.
We want to see a thriving, competitive and attractive railway system. But it is sometimes difficult to explain to our constituents that that is what we are supporting and fighting for in Parliament and as that made in the annual report this elsewhere when we see statements such year. It reveals that British Rail is doing everything possible to replace its old, clapped-out rolling stock—which is one of the main bones of contention among my constituents who complain about travelling in cattle truck conditions—but there is an ominous warning in the report that some of this replacement cannot take place on schedule. The result is that some rolling stock will be 40 years old before it is taken out of service.
If we want to run a museum railway, that is fine. But we want a thriving, competitive and modern railway system. The Government should be urged to do everything possible to achieve that. A new Conservative Government might be required to set the conditions for a railway system which can invest in the new equipment which will increase traffic and improve productivity and profits.

Mr. Sainsbury: Government Members seem to find it difficult to understand the purpose of the new clause. I find that strange. The purpose was set out clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). The new clause promotes understanding. British Rail is spending a great deal of money on advertising which appears to be intended to improve public understanding of the role and work of British Rail. Its purpose is to reassure the public and the taxpayer and to seek information from British Rail on its financial results. That is no more—and indeed rather less—than that which would be demanded of any private company which was not seeking subsidies from the taxpayer for its operation.
If a private company sought fresh funds it would be required to set out a great deal more information than that which is required in the new clause and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). For hon. Members to suggest that we are knocking British Rail by

asking for this modest amount of information is a total distortion.
I emphasise the need for reassurance. The travelling public and the taxpayer are entitled to reassurance. Unfortunately, many doubts have been expressed about the quality of the service. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) spoke about the difficulty of looking out of a window on a train. That difficulty is certainly experienced on the Littlehampton, Brighton and Uckfield lines.

Mr. Atkins: What exactly do Opposition Members have in mind? Some of us argue that we already have the information which he requires. No doubt he will be able to pinpoint those parts of the accounts which are lacking.

Mr. Sainsbury: I do not wish to detain the House for long. If the hon. Member read the new clause carefully, examined the requirements of the Companies Act and then looked at the information with which British Rail provides us he would find that for which we ask.
There are doubts about the service that is provided. Those doubts could be lessened by more information about the financial and productivity performance of British Rail. There are doubts about the costing of services. There are profound doubts in the light of the Price Commission report. This does not mean that if the cost of various services is reviewed, some will be closed down. It means that if line A is making a profit and line B is running at a substantial loss, one does not put up the fares equally on those lines. One might consider alternative ways of solving the problems of line B. One might consider the amount of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money which is justified to support the continued operation of line B at that level. One might consider whether it is better to replace that service with a road service.

Mr. Johnson Smith: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many commuters in the South-East—and this is true of my constituents—feel that they are captive and that because of that they have to bear an unfair proportion of British Rail's costs?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is perfectly right about that. He knows, as


do others of us who represent constituencies in the South-East, of the number of representations that are made about the level of fares that the captive commuter pays. The commuter suspects—and his suspicion may be unfounded, but we do not know—that he is being asked to subsidise other less well used and in some cases even unnecessary lines.
Perhaps more than anything, all taxpayers would like some reassurance that the subsidies given are not used to support inefficient practices. Productivity improvements have been made, and we recognise that they are continuing. However, Labour Members do not seem to understand productivity.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to see separate accounts for Travellers' Fare?

Mr. Sainsbury: That is a very good example.
Output, in terms both of quantity and quality, must be related to input in terms of capital. There may be sound justification for injecting further capital in certain areas. I am sure that this relationship can be achieved, and I am sure that British Rail is conscious that it can be done. Running British Rail is no more complicated than running most large organisations, and it is a good deal less complicated than running some. British Rail has a statutory monopoly and does not have to worry about a competitor's activities. That is one advantage it has over most companies.
It is possible for British Rail to improve its productivity. It has done so and it should continue doing so, particularly since it is asking for subsidies from the taxpayer and ratepayer to support its current level of activity.
One of the best reasons for supporting the clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham is that if this additional information had to be made available—and I can see no reason why it should not be—British Rail's management, if not the entire work force, would have that extra spur to improving its performance. It would know that the public and this House would know just how well it had done. Successful

businesses are those in which the work forces have a pride in their achievement. That is what I hope we can secure with British Rail. If there is good news, let us make sure that everyone hears about it. Let us make sure that by accepting the new clause and the amendment we make it more probable that there will be good news about the performance of British Rail.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Penhaligon: I have never worked for British Rail. However, I claim to spend more hours per week on a train than does any other hon. Member in the House at the moment. I spend about 12 hours a week bumping from here to the South-West and back on British Rail. On the whole, I think the service is good. I have never bothered to keep a record of the number of occasions when the trains have been dramatically late arriving at Paddington. Such occasions are few and far between.
My main criticism is that the trains are filthy. It is time someone did something about it. When I hear about all the fancy investment programmes advocated by some members of the railway lobby in this House, I hope that included in that investment will be a new bucket, spade, bar of soap and a couple of vacuum cleaners for cleaning out the carriages. The dirty condition of the trains is unacceptable. Other than that, the service is acceptable.
In my part of the country, and in many other parts that are on the periphery of the British Rail network, there is a continuing worry whether the railway lines will be closed. Judging from today's debate, that worry is well justified. In effect, my county has one railway line with two small branch lines. It is important for the economy of the county that the line should be maintained. Male unemployment there is already at 14 per cent.
One of the things that I do now that I did not do before I was elected to this House is to read regularly the London newspapers. I have been following the considerable correspondence that appears about the railways, and I understand how important the railways are to the people who commute daily to London. I suspect that the clause is a reflection of the considerable number of letters and articles


that have appeared in the Press concerning the price of commuting to London.
I believe that the Conservative Party is being slightly Poujadiste by claiming that provision of the figures it seeks will in some way reduce the increase in fares that people in the London area have to pay. The Conservatives must face one fundamental point. There is only one way of relieving pressure on the commuters in London. That is to close down the railway lines in Cornwall, Norfolk and Wales and to ensure that further areas of Scotland never again see a railway train. If that is Tory policy, that is all very well, but the Tories should spell it out as much in those areas that would be affected as they spell it out in the London evening newspapers night after night.

Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Member oblige us by not attributing to us ideas that have never been in our minds? Further, will he say how on earth such a drastic operation would help the people in London?

Mr. Ronald Atkins: It was said.

Mr. Younger: It was not said.

Mr. Penhaligon: That is the whole point. It was said, and more than once.

Mr. Younger: By whom?

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) said it, in effect. He said that if there were two lines, one of which was breaking even or making a slight profit while the other was losing money, at the next fares review both should not suffer the same increase. He said that one line might be closed. In Cornwall there is only one railway line left, and if that were closed we would be in real trouble.

Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman about what I said. The suggestion that fares might not go up by the same amount on both lines would follow naturally if it were discovered that one line was making a profit. If the fares were increased on that line the traffic might be discouraged, thus reducing the profit. I believe that it is necessary to look for the best way of providing the service that is required. That is surely what we all want.

Mr. Penhaligon: Let us accept—I do not know whether it is so—that there are

railway lines that are making a substantial profit. The hon. Member's argument was that such railway lines should have only to achieve a balance in contributing towards British Rail funds; that would then reduce the income from that line, and if that income were reduced the income from another line would have to be increased, or the line would have to be closed. That is the vicious and nasty circle in which we find ourselves—unless the Conservative Party is arguing for a substantial increase in public expenditure and in the general subsidy to British Rail.

Mr. Adley: I think that the hon. Member will see tomorrow morning in Hansard that he said that there were only two branch lines left in Cornwall. Is the St. Ives Branch line open? I think the answer to that is "Yes". What about the Newquay line, the LiskeardLooe line, or the Plymouth-Gunnislake line? I think the answer on all those is "Yes." Those are four lines, which is a 100 per cent. increase on what the hon. Gentleman claimed. That is without going into the question of services to Falmouth, and so on. Before the hon. Gentleman starts accusing my hon. Friend of inaccuracy, he ought to do his homework more carefully.

Mr. Penhaligon: The crucial point for the Cornish railway lines is the bridge at Plymouth. There is one bridge at Plymouth, which takes the line through the middle of Cornwall, and the very small lines to which the hon. Gentleman referred disappear off it in various directions.
Let us assume that the clause is written into the Bill and that the figures are produced. Let us assume that we get more useful information than we had before. I suspect that in those circumstances the next debate we had on British Rail would be a vicious argument—and I might be one of the participants—about the method of calculation of the various losses or profits allocated between the various lines. The next debate would see demands for a great deal of in-depth information on precisely how the calculations were made and the costs distributed between the various lines.
We are faced with the ludicrous proposition that we should be allowed to


start running British Rail. I cannot believe that there is any necessity for or possibility of our doing that. I do not believe that we could come anywhere near doing it, even if we tried.
There is no doubt that productivity gains could be made within British Rail, but I suspect that that state of affairs is by no means unique to British Rail. I find some difficulty in thinking of one industry, other than tin mining where an increase in productivity is a reasonable possibility.
I am impressed by the efforts made to reduce staff. However, it seems to me that the really effective reductions in staff are at one end of the job spectrum. We are talking about cleaners. These are the easy ones to deal with. One does not have to dimiss cleaners. There is an enormous turnover in them, so one just stops recruiting for a while and the number goes down. I suspect that the staff reductions are not as impressive as the figures suggest, as they are largely, far too largely, coming from one section of British Rail employees.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Not true.

Mr. Penhaligon: If that is not true, I say "Thank goodness", because if it were so I dread to think how dirty the railway wagons would be.
I have no intention of supporting the new clause. I do not believe that in real terms—

Mr. Norman Fowler: Mr. Norman Fowlerrose—

Mr. Penhaligon: Sit down for a minute.
I do not believe that in any real sense the clause would increase the information at our disposal. It would not answer the fundamental question. The difficult fundamental question that the House should face is just what it will do about those railway lines that lose a substantial amount of money and are undoubtedly a considerable strain on the total service. I do not believe that the idea that one can charge significantly less for commuters can mean anything other than the annihilation of the railway service in the peripheral areas of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman had been courteous enough to give way just now he could have been told that anyone who listened to his speech will

confirm that it was probably the biggest load of old rubbish that we have heard for years in a speech about transport matters. The Liberal Party should get a new transport spokesman after this. Is the hon. Gentleman opposing what we are saying on productivity? If he is, why did he vote for it in Committee?

Mr. Penhaligon: I am certainly not opposing what the hon. Gentleman said.
I am very successful in one way as the Liberal spokesman on transport. All I have to do is to get to my feet for five minutes and the Conservative Benches erupt with anger and general dismay. I suspect that the truth is that Conservative Members recognise that in the Bill the first real progress has been made for rural transport for many a long year. They recognise that this could well be a great embarrassment to them in the rural constituencies at the next election. The battle in the rural seats is not between them and the Government but between them and us, and the Bill will help us substantially.

Mr. William Rodgers: For a moment I hesitated to rise, because I thought that the debate was ending on a highly satisfactory note. There was very little of what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said with which I could take issue. I thought that he got to the heart of the matter, if we are to be controversial—and I have been divided whether we should or should not be—in illustrating the real dilemma of the railways: in so far as they do not always pay their way, by what formula do we maintain them, if that is what we intend to do? As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we do it by increasing fares or subsidies or by cutting out railway lines, except in so far as we can make a substantial contribution to higher productivity.
I do not think that there is any disagreement on either side of the House about the need to achieve higher levels of productivity, which are always within the compass of any enterprise, even a distinguished enterprise such as that of which the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) is in one sense a representative.

Mr. Johnson Smith: In addition, less cross-subsidisation can play its part.

Mr. Rodgers: Were it possible to spell out precisely what some of the commuter lines cost, and were the assumption then that, the cost being so high, they must be eliminated or the fares might be increased, the prospect would be very alarming and displeasing to hon. Members. Cross-subsidisation and a certain veil over the details of figures may well be the best way of avoiding great embarrassment to hon. Members and their constituents, so perhaps for their own sake it would not be wise to press the new clause.
I find my case against the clause and the amendment very much made in the speeches of my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) has been my mentor since he and I both arrived in the House about 16 years ago. He spoke of a note of better understanding of the railways and of no British Rail Board's being more accessible than today's.
I share in the tribute paid to Mr. Peter Parker on both sides of the House, by the hon. Members for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and Carshalton (Mr. Forman) as well as by my hon. Friends. I think that only the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) was a somewhat dissenting heretic. At least he reserved his position whether, if Mr. Peter Parker were ever to be canonised, he might retire himself to a schismatic situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) also raised the question of motive. He was very interesting when he said—and I think that this was reflected in the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro—that the call for more information was sometimes a way of avoiding policy decisions. How very right he was! My hon. Friend illustrated in his typically forceful speech the nature of the problems that the railways face and the need to approach them in a temperate and sensible way.
I am glad that on both sides of the House there is good will towards the railways. I am glad that we are moving towards a situation in which the need for a continuing and central role for the railways is acknowledged. But I am a little doubtful whether, when we get away from the figures and the argument that there should be more, Opposition Members

are at heart quite the figures of generosity, kindness and good will that they seek to be in the present period of debate of railway matters. We might see—I hope that we shall not—that they are not quite the sheep that they pretend but are wolves in sheep's clothing.
I turn to the question of disclosure. The hon. Member for Newbury illustrated some of the arguments against the clause. I am very much for more openness. This view has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself not only in the course of the Bill's passage but in the House on many occasions. This is also the view of the chairman of British Rail. But I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a matter not only of publishing figures but of getting people to read them. I have been looking at the Board's annual report for 1977 and comparing it with the annual reports of 1976 and 1975. It is a great advance in disclosure. But I fear that the hon. Gentleman has not read the report, or that if he has read it he has forgotten it or has not read it all.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the price variations. It was a fair question, one to which I would be prepared at any time to give a considered and—although not tonight—lengthy reply. But on page 15 of this year's annual report there is a paragraph dealing with the specific circumstances in which there can be price variations. All that is there. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied. I suggest that he will not be satisfied by further figures unless there is a complete understanding of them.
Therefore, I do not assume that disclosure and more disclosure, although I should like it, will either solve the problems of the railways or, on occasion, solve problems of comprehension. I do not blame the hon. Member for Newbury. The fault can lie in myself and other hon. Members as much as in him. I think that the information is there. If he wishes to pursue it in greater detail, since this is probably not the right moment I shall be glad to do so with him on some other occasion, should he seek the opportunity to raise the matter further in the House.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman has accused me of failing to read the report, he must allow me one word. Will he explain how, on


the estimated results for 1977, the total payable by the Government is £364 million, and how in the Department of Transport's own document the figure of central Government support is £355·9 million? That does not seem to be beyond the wit of man to answer. I am sure that the Secretary of State has the answer ready on his tongue and he need not refer to his civil servants.

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Gentleman and the House wish me to pursue this at greater length, I am happy to do so. The hon. Gentleman asked whethere there was a conflict in the figures. I am saying—he will see this on page 15 of the annual report—that there are circumstances, carefully specified, in which the claim can be adjusted, and the figures which he mentioned represent the adjustments in the claim made according to a specified formula. The hon. Gentleman asked me for the figure for the current year. If I recall aright, I gave it to the House on 3rd May—a figure of £403 million—and I gave some further details about it. That figure is subject in the same way, in specified circumstances, to adjustments if need be.
8.30 p.m.
I have considered very hard whether the new clause and the amendment present proposals which, in their spirit, I could accept. I regret to say that I regard them as either superfluous or not likely to lead to the provision of additional meaningful information which would enable the House better to make its decision.
I have stated my intention—I have agreed this with the chairman—about the publication of further detailed information. The hon. Member for Newbury—I think that it was he—spoke slightingly about the little booklet which British Rail published in an effort to help us all to understand the complications of railway costings. They are complicated, and the debate continues. It will continue as long as there are philosophers. It has gone on for at least 30 years. There is no absolute measure of rightness. It is a matter of judgment and of calculation at every stage.
I have considered whether there was any more information which I should be required to give to the House of Commons.

I hope that, over a period of time there will be the sort of disclosure which will substantially satisfy hon. Members. I shall certainly take note, as the chairman will, I know, of all that has been said this evening. I want to move towards a situation, uncomfortable though it may be for some hon. Members, where there is the maximum information available upon which the House can debate policy. But I honestly do not believe that there is any point in putting on the Board a statutory requirement of the kind here proposed. I hope that the new clause and the amendment will not be pressed. If the new clause is not withdrawn, I shall ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Younger: I am totally mystified why the Secretary of State did not agree with us and accept our proposal. Everything he said, save the statement that he did not think that he could accept it, seemed entirely to support the new clause. He said that he was in favour of more openness. He said, so far as we understood him, that all the information which has been asked for is to be provided. The only thing he seems to be against is having it provided in this way, purely because we have suggested it. If I may say so, that is something of a dog-in-the-manger attitude on the right hon. Gentleman's part.
We have been greatly assisted in the debate by one or two contributions from those who either have a deep interest in the railways or have been employed or involved in them. I think here of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley).
At this point, perhaps I may briefly raise a House of Commons matter. I hope that hon. Members will not mind my making the point, and I think it worthy of mention. It is normal to declare an interest when one has an interest. We were delighted to have the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central and for Leicester, East here, and I should not normally worry in the slightest about this matter, but as there is such a monstrous fuss when any of us on the Opposition Benches has an interest to declare, I feel that it would have been a good idea if that had been done.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: I should have been perfectly happy to declare my NUR sponsorship, but when I spoke there was not, I believe, a single Member present in the Chamber who was not well aware of it.

Mr. Younger: I entirely accept the truth of that, but that is not the issue, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. There is an immense fuss made by his hon. Friends when any one of us speaks and there is a question of interest, and I feel that there should be equality in these matters. If we are required to do so, so should hon. Members on the Government Benches.
Our debate today has not been, or ought not to have been, about the financial results of British Rail or about its productivity, because the issue before us is purely whether it would help to have these particular pieces of information spelt out in the way suggested in the new clause before the money is produced for the support of the railways. Therefore, the true issue before is not whether we should support British Rail, whether we want more productivity, whether we think that the railways are being well run, or even whether Mr. Peter Parker should be canonised. The issue is whether it would help to have this information required by statute to be spelt out before further support is provided for the railways. That seems a clear and specific issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) made an extremely telling point when he said that the information requested in the new clause is no more, and indeed considerably less, than is required to be produced under the Companies Acts by virtually every public company, both large and small. It is strange that there should be such an instinctive resistance by British Rail to publishing information in this way when there is such a correct insistence that there should be more disclosure for the benefit of workers and shareholders in public companies. I support that process, but I cannot understand why Labour Members seem reluctant to support it when the information is required from a nationalised industry.
We have nothing to fear from having the maximum information on these matters. Indeed, if there were any genuine

doubt whether it was an eccentric view expressed by the Opposition, we have the comments of the Price Commission after its investigation into commuter fares. It could not have been more specific. For instance, in page 2, paragraph 7, of its report states:
But in our view, it is highly desirable that the Board's proposed developments in this area should be accelerated and present target dates for completion brought forward from 1980–81.
We could not get much closer than that to the intention of New Clause No. 3.
The Commission's further comments in paragraph 9 regarding London and the South-East underline that point:
Any further discrimination against London and the South East in subsequent fares increases would be difficult to justify until improved cost analysis enables a clearer view to be taken on appropriate objectives in the balance of revenue as between London and the South East and the rest of the system.
The Opposition are not alone in requiring this information and in considering that it would help to increase understanding in the public's mind of what the taxpayers' money which is provided to support British Rail services is used for and where.
My experience, which admittedly is mostly at the Scottish end of the operations of British Rail, is that the trend in recent years of publishing the amount of public money which is spent on individual services has in no way acted against the interests of those services, of the public or of British Rail. The maximum amount of information has been helpful, and that is the intention of the new clause.
The other point regarding productivity led to some interesting discussion about the need for further productivity. I entirely agree that the railways have had a good record in trying to improve productivity. But I also agree, as I think most hon. Members would, that there is still a long way to go. Indeed, the British Railways Board has made clear that, in its view, there is scope for the reduction of a further 40,000 jobs over the next few years.
In this matter one does not have to be either for or against British Rail to wish to see public money spent as tellingly and wisely as possible, and therefore to ensure


that it is not wasted by too slow progress on productivity, if that were to happen. If I were employed by or involved in the management of British Rail, I should be anxious to feel that I had a certain amount of pressure all the time to enable me to increase the progress towards better productivity. The only way for British Rail to be successful against its competitors here and internationally is to ensure that its productivity standards are as high as possible.
I believe that the new clause is in every respect in the interests of British Rail, of those who use its services and of the taxpayers whose money is used to support the services. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why the House should not agree with the clause.
There is one final point I wish to put on record, and it arises from the remarks of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) about subsidising the railway services as a whole. Nobody with any great knowledge of running railways would suggest that they could be run without some element of public subsidy. I know of no railway system in the free

Division No. 215]
AYES
[8.42 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Aitken, Jonathan
Farr, John
Lawson, Nigel


Alison, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Le Marchant, Spencer


Arnold, Tom
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Neil


Bell, Ronald
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
MacGregor, John


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Madel, David


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mates, Michael


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mather, Carol


Biggs-Davison, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick


Brittan, Leon
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Peter


Buck, Antony
Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bulmer, Esmond
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger


Burden, F. A.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Montgomery, Fergus


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Channon, Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hodgson, Robin
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Clegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Cope, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Mudd, David


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clerk
Nelson, Anthony


Crouch, David
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Onslow, Cranley


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, John (Harrow West)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Elliott, Sir William
Knox, David
Percival, Ian


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)

world which has the remotest chance of running without public subsidy. The argument is not whether one Government or another will subsidise railways but whether we can devise a system under which the railways can be run in such a way as to have public support to enable them to run efficiently to give good service.

We maintain that if the railways wish to achieve these objectives, they will be helped in that task if they have to present to Parliament and the Minister a clear statement of the financial results broken down into the various services and areas, and also if they make a statement showing steady progress in productivity before the services are given further support from public funds. That surely will be to everybody's advantage.

We believe that the Minister is making a great mistake in turning down, without giving any good reason, an acceptable and useful addition to the statutory backup of British Rail. I hope that the House will support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 217.

Raison, Timothy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Rathbone, Tim
Shepherd, Colin
Trotter, Neville


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, John


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Sinclair, Sir George
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rhodes James, R.
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Wall, Patrick


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Wells, John


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stalnton, Keith
Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Younger, Hon George


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)



Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stradling, Thomas, J.
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Sainsbury, Tim
Tebbit, Norman
Sir George Young.


Scott, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Archer, Peter
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Armstrong, Ernest
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
Mendelson, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Forrester, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Mitchell, Austin


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Freud, Clement
Moonman, Eric


Bates, Alf
Garrett, W. E. (Wallaend)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenahawe)


Bean, R. E.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Beith, A. J.
Golding, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Gould, Bryan
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bidwell, Sydney
Gourlay, Harry
Noble, Mike


Bishop, E. S.
Graham, Ted
Oakes, Gordon


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ogden, Eric


Boardman, H.
Grocott, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Ovenden, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pardoe, John


Buchan, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Park, George


Buchanan, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Parker, John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Horam, John
Parry, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pavitt, Laurie


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pendry, Tom


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Les
Penhaligon, David


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Price, C. (Lowisham W)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Price, William (Rugby)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles


Clemitson, Ivor
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cohen, Stanley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Janner, Greville
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Corbett, Robin
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rooker, J. W.


Cowans, Harry
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roper, John


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Cronin, John
Jones, Alec (Rnondda)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, Ted


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kaufman, Gerald
Ryman, John


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Sever, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lee, John
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Snape, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Spearing, Nigel


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, J. D.
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon W. (Fulham)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


Dunnett, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strang, Gavin


Edge, Geoff
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Magee, Bryan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mahon, Simon
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Evans, John (Newton)
Marks, Kenneth
Tierney, Sydney

Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)
Weitzman, David
Woodell, Alec


Tinn, James
Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert


Tuck, Raphael
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Whitehead, Phillip
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Whitlock, William



Walker, Harold (Doncasler)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Mr. Joeseph Harper and


Ward, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Mr. Thomas Cox.


Watkins, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause No. 4

GENERAL DUTIES OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS

"In exercising their statutory functions in regard to public passenger transport services the traffic commissioners shall give first consideration to the transport policies and plans of the local authorities formulated in accordance with section 1 and section 2 of this Act.".—[Mr. Fry.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingbourough): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Having debated New Clauses Nos. 1, 2 and 3, we now come back to the beginning of the Bill and the part relating to the public transport plans.
It should be put on record that in this new clause the Opposition are making a genuine attempt to help the Bill work more effectively than it would otherwise. We should recall that the Bill was supposed to be the rural charter that the Secretary of State was proudly proclaiming some time ago, though his pride is a bit muted now. The Opposition accept that the Bill makes some contribution to resolving the problems of public transport, especially in the non-metropolitan counties. However, as we said several times both on Second Reading and in Committee, we feel that there are some disadvantages in the Bill as it stands and that it may need further amendment.
This becomes very clear when we consider the future functions of the traffic commissioners. Much stress has been laid on the new responsibilities and the new role which the Government expect the county councils to have. However, the Bill does not specify and delineate the future role of the traffic commissioners, especially apropros the county councils and the TTPs.
The Opposition have varying views on the traffic commissioners and their future. I do not go quite so far as, for example,

my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), whose mother, the traffic commissioners are convinced, was frightened by a traffic commissioner many years ago. My hon. Friend has clearly and consistently called for their total abolition. However, all of us feel that the powers of the traffic commissioners need to be curtailed.
One of the great weaknesses of the Bill is that although responsibilities have been laid on the county councils, power in terms of licensing still, ostensibly, lies securely with the traffic commissioners. The Opposition have said consistently that there should be a shift in the power of licensing from the traffic commissioners to the county councils. One of our reasons for saying that is that we feel that there will be an area of difficulty and possible confrontation between the two if this legislation goes through in its present form.
It is interesting to recall that on Second Reading the Opposition made two main criticisms. First, we were critical about the definitions of various key words. We are grateful to the Government for their Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which seem to bear out our criticisms. They are an attempt to define the various responsibilities more clearly than in the original Bill.
9.0 p.m.
The other great problem that we foresaw earlier on was the one of potential areas of conflict. There is obviously an area of conflict between a county council and a bus operator, whether the operator is a district council undertaking, an NBC subsidiary or a private concern. We accept that the Bill, and even the new clause, cannot resolve that conflict.
There are two other potential areas of conflict—one between the district councils and the county councils and another between the county councils and the traffic commissioners. Those who sat through a long and interesting Committee stage will remember that the Association of District


Councils was perturbed on Second Reading, and in the discussion on the three clauses, about its position apropos the county councils with their new responsibilities. We were asked by the association to make considerable amendment to the Government's proposals because it had a genuine fear that its interest would be overruled, if not sometimes ignored.
It was clear that any decisions made by the county councils would be carried out without any means of appeal to the Secretary of State. Where a district council operator runs alongside, or intermingles with, services of, say, an NBC operator in the county, considerable confusion and conflict could be caused. I congratulate the Government on their second thoughts in their amendment. It clearly lays out the detailed process of consultation and the reporting on the consultation which the ADC and other interested parties have requested for some time. I am pleased that the Association of District Councils is quite happy with the Government's amendment, and we are grateful that the Government have listened to us and to the association.
The removing of this area of conflict has made the new clause all the more necessary. If the district councils and the county councils are now to sort out the plans and hammer out the matter together, it is important to make it clear that such plans shall be put into force. It is because, as the law stands, they may not necessarily be put into force—because power still resides with the traffic commissioners—that we feel that the new clause is essential.
There is a difference of opinion on both sides of the House on the question whether an appeals procedures is necessary. The Secretary of State does not believe in any form of appeals procedure. Without that, as the matter has to be resolved between the county councils and the traffic commissioners, sooner or later some one has to make a decision. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in Committee he said, in effect, that at some time during the consultative process somebody had to make decisions and have the ultimate responsibility.
Unless the new clause is accepted, there is the danger that the buck will not stop with the county council. It will be given the responsibility, but its plans could go

awry because of the operations of the traffic commissioners. The Government must back up what they are asking the county councils to do. They are giving them the prime responsibility for preparing the public transport plans. They must give the county councils the wherewithal to fulfil those plans, not only financially—this aspect has been discussed and settled satisfactorily—but by allowing them to make sure that the long-winded and detailed discussions that will take place during the preparations of plans are not wasted by the activities of traffic commissioners.
If we consider what is likely to happen under the existing system we can see why we have tabled the new clause. We know two things straight away. We know that the traffic commissioners do not have to be consulted over the plans. They are not among the organisations listed in the Government's amendment. Secondly, we know that there is no appeal against a county council's plan once it has been formulated.
If we felt that traffic commissioners would always accept a county council's plan and put it into effect without difficulty, we would say that the new clause is not necessary, but any hon. Member who has had anything to do with the traffic commissioners and road service licences will know that there is a tendency to preserve the status quo. There is an inborn tendency to protect the existing operator and to make things difficult for new people to come in.
This arises not only because of the problems of convincing traffic commissioners, but because of the expense involved. Few operators will embark on an expensive programme of buying new buses and getting legal representation when they know that when they get before the traffic commissioners they will be confronted by, say, an NBC subsidiary which has briefed a QC to appear on its behalf. Few operators will go through all that for a licence that they might or might not get.
Although there has been innovation in public transport, the way in which the traffic commissioners have operated has tended to perpetuate existing licences, although there have been some variations in services. Most people who have anything to do with road service licences


would accept that, until now, change has been difficult. That is why we are having a succession of pieces of legislation to try to improve the overall situation.
I give credit to the NBC for bringing forward reform from within. Through its market analysis projects it is, at long last, trying to tailor its services to the revenue that it is likely to receive. But it will be some time before that approach will make less necessary the sort of plans that we are talking about in the Bill and the sort of decisions that we are talking about in the new clause.
It is because we shall have considerable delay in implementing that approach that we feel that the Government must get this part of the Bill right. Let me be honest about this. We would have transferred many more of the traffic commissioners' powers to the county councils. We believe that it is a mistake not to take this opportunity to make a much more drastic reform. We discussed this matter at length in Committee.
If we are not to transfer more powers it is essential that the role of the traffic commissioners should be interpreted much more clearly. There is a tendency to favour existing licence holders and the potential for conflict between a county council that wants to bring about considerable change and the traffic commissioners who will tend to resist it.
The Government seem to take the line that the role of traffic commisioners has not altered very much and that the powers remain the same. They seem quite happy that this should be the case. I do not think that the role of traffic commissioners can remain quite the same after this Bill, nor do I think that it is desirable that it should do. There must be a measure of evolution, and the natural way for that to go is to give the county councils the power to fulfil the plan that they have been asked to prepare.
The Government's new Amendment No. 15 says that the review of county needs must be accompanied by the criteria applied to determine need. When I spoke on Second Reading, I criticised the Government because of their failure adequately to define the word "need". The Under-Secretary thought that this was not necessary and that there was already an adequate definition. I find it

fascinating that the Government have now passed the buck. Instead of attempting to define the word "need" they are handing the definition straight back to the county councils.
I am not against that, in the sense that I believe that the more local the decision and the definition of need the better—the man in Whitehall does not usually know best in terms of rural bus services at the other end of England—but because the Government are asking the county councils to take on board this change in emphasis they must give the county council the prime responsibility for pushing ahead with its plan. If the traffic commissioners are to co-operate with the county councils, far from just taking note of the plans they should give them primary consideration.
The Government might say that we are using a rather unusual turn of phrase in our new clause. We have asked that
the traffic commissioners shall give first consideration to the transport policies and plans of the local authorities formulated in accordance with section 1 and section 2 of this Act".
There may be some legal minds who ask the meaning of "first consideration". Our answer is that this phrase was coined by the Government in the Children Act. The idea of first consideration has now been put forward, and presumably it can be interpreted.
What we do not want to arise from the Bill is a situation in which the counties suddenly decide that they must set up a new administrative procedure, perhaps taking on new staff, to prepare these plans, which must be discussed and gone into with the district councils, the trade unions, consumer bodies and Uncle Torn Cobbleigh and all, and then find that the plans cannot be put into effect.
I remind the Under-Secretary that already there has been considerable conflict in Oxfordshire between the policies of the county council and the decisions of the traffic commissioners. One of the reasons why Oxfordshire ran foul of the traffic commissioners was that the county council had looked at the matter almost entirely in terms of its own local requirements and had tended to ignore the necessity for through routes, particularly over county boundaries. Therefore, I was rather surprised that in bringing forward amendments that we shall discuss later, the Government had removed the need


for county councils to consult adjoining counties. I know perfectly well that where routes cross county boundaries, if one council decides to cease support this can cause immense problems to people living just over the county boundary.
We shall have to press the right hon. Gentleman to ascertain why it was decided to remove that wording. Bearing in mind the conflict that took place, it is obvious that the pattern could be set for further conflict between the traffic commissioners and the county councils in future. If that conflict takes place, the worst thing that could happen would be for the county councils to say "We have to redraft our plans". If they took that view, the whole sorry business would start all over again. We felt that from the moment the plan is put forward, and provided that there is thorough investigation and we approve the Government's proposals in this respect, it should have prime consideration. We do not think that too much power is being taken away from the commissioners.
9.15 p.m.
The commissioners will still have a role to play. They will be able to say, for example, "If you go forward with that proposal there might be damage done to certain operators". We are not saying that the commissioners have no say. We are saying that the plan should go through and should be accepted. If it is not, we believe that the high hopes that the Government have for this piece of legislation will founder.
It has taken the Government so long to reach even this stage that if the Bill is not the success that it is hoped for in many parts of the country will find themselves without public transport.
The Government's new Amendment the Bill, they have a clear responsibility to define more clearly and to put the responsibility of carrying out the plan where it is intended to be put, rather than, as the tendency is in the Bill, to leave a somewhat grey area for the commissioners and to allow them, perhaps unwittingly, to impede that with which the county councils want to go ahead.
Some of my hon. Friends will undoubtedly want slightly to widen the debate. After all, the clause is entitled "General duties of the Traffic Commissioners". The commissioners have an important role to play and they will continue

to have that role in future. It would be damaging to the future of the commissioners if the Government did not accept the clause and there were conflict. If they do not accept the clause, there will be a greater reaction, and many more people will agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who wants to sweep away the commissioners completely. That would not necessarily be in the best interests of public transport. The commissioners are regarded by most sections of public transport as independent minded. It is accepted that although they are appointed by the Secretary of State they have the reputation of trying to make honest decisions.
The Under-Secretary of State will argue that if I pay the commissioners that sort of tribute I should not be worried about a possible cause of conflict. My reason for concern is the general remit that the commissioners still have under existing legislation. Despite some limitations, especially in terms of excursions and tours lasting overnight, their general remit has remained the same, with some minor exceptions, such as community buses and certain road service licences. As their basic position has not been changed, they must be expected to interpret their remit very much as they have done in the past. I do not blame anyone for fulfilling his job as it is laid down. I am merely saying that the way in which the commissioners have Interpreted their duties quite properly in the past has led, on the whole, to the stultifying of innovation and a failure in co-operation.
Throughout the whole public transport sector we have seen rising fares, fewer buses and more and more services reduced. If we are to tackle these problems, it is necessary now to have completely new thinking. One of the answers is to give the new responsibilities to the county councils.
Perhaps some people will say "This all sounds very well, but in such-and-such a county they are in no position yet to prepare the kind of public transport plans that are ideal". Perhaps some counties are much more forward than others in their planning and in the way in which they now co-ordinate public transport. Some counties are very much more ahead in the way in which the county surveyor or the co-ordinator for public transport look at these problems and, indeed, in


their ability. A point made several times is that if we are to have this county co-ordination it is essential that we get high-calibre officers. Very often we find that the co-ordinating officer is rather too low in the pecking order of the county council. If we are to get the new move and the direction that the Government want, it is essential that county councils have the confidence to appoint the right people and the confidence that their plans will be put into effect.
Summing up, I should have thought that by putting forward the new clause we have made a genuine attempt to make the Bill work. In no way can it be described as any kind of wrecking clause. As I have said several times, it does not even accord with the way in which we would change the powers of traffic commissioners and would make a much greater reform. We put forward the new clause because we believe that in public transport we have waited far too long for many essential reforms. For far too long have we waited and seen declining services and rising fares.
We put forward the new clause in the spirit of co-operation. If the Under-Secretary decides that he cannot accept it, he runs into one great problem. He tends to reinforce all the worries and fears that I have been putting forward tonight, and he is danger of making county councils wonder what worth this Bill is, in any event. They were very sceptical about it from the word "go". If the Bill is to work, they must feel that the Government will have confidence in the decisions that they will be taking and will give them the power and wherewithal to implement them.

Mr. Bradley: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has very carefully and reasonably explained his case for the new clause. He has certainly expressed many of the anxieties that I feel on this issue. I appreciate his approach.
My attitude to the new clause is certainly coloured by the general proposals outlined by the Government in Clauses 1 and 2. I am not enamoured of them. I draw no confidence at all from the track record of county councils in the role of co-ordinators of public transport services.
But if there is to be a willingness and an expertise deployed by them in future in drawing up these plans, and if we can, therefore, assume that in their reinforced role as co-ordinating authorities they will produce agreed plans with the district councils for improved services, the traffic commissioners can very soon make a mockery of them unless we add to their terms of reference. As I understand it, that is what the Opposition are seeking to do tonight. For that reason, I approve the approach that they are making in the new clause.
During the years since the Road Traffic Act 1930, the traffic commissioners have followed precepts that have become a tradition of favouring the retention by existing service operators of the routes that they have worked for years, even where they have little relationship with present-day traffic flows and where even lower standards of service and higher fares are perpetuated. This has certainly meant that many municipal operators have been unable to organise all the services within their boundaries on behalf of their local residents and all the ratepayers.
In Leicester there are several huge housing estates, built on land which was formerly outside the city boundary but is now well within the city boundary, the residents of which are denied a corporation bus service as the historic road service licence has virtually given security of tenure to another operator whose level of performance often falls well below that which the district council could provide.
A large housing estate at Thurnby Lodge in my constituency was completed in the 1950s. Yet to this day not one of the corporation's 233 buses runs there. They terminate at a point which in prewar days marked the old city boundary. I could give other examples. This is a total nonsense in 1978.
The National Bus Company subsidiary which has the licence to operate beyond that pre-war point frequently has attracted complaints from my constituents about unreliable services. The company is doing its best to rectify the deficiencies but the complaints persist. We must bring to an end this ossified network of bus operators whose origins were laid nearly half a century ago.
Unless we require the traffic commissioners, as suggested in the new clause, to give first consideration to the transport policies prepared by the local authorities, I see no hope that the traffic commissioners will depart from their long-established practice of preserving the status quo. The new clause would introduce a useful new criterion. I welcome it. I hope that the Government will accept it and give full weight to the words of the hon. Member for Wellingborough and myself.

Mr. Ian Gow: I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) will not think it presumptuous if I say that I agree with every word that he has said.
The new clause refers to the exercise of the statutory functions of the traffic commissioners. I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), when moving the new clause, had in mind Section 135 of the Road Traffic Act 1960, as amended by Schedule 2 of this Bill. My hon. Friend will correct me if I have misunderstood him, but I assume that the powers of the commissioners, to which he referred, were those contained in Section 135 of the 1960 Act as amended by Schedule 2.
Under the amended section, which appears on page 20 of the Bill, the traffic commissioners are directed to take into account
any transport policies or plans which have been made by the local authorities concerned and have been drawn to the commissioners' attention by those authorities".
To that extent the objectives of the new clause have been understood already and legislated for by the Government. I do not see any fundamental difference between New Clause No. 4 and Schedule (2A)(a).

Mr. Temple-Morris: The new clause that we are debating talks of "first consideration". I accept what my hon. Friend has said and he is right to draw the attention of the House to Schedule 2. But Schedule 2(2A)(a) has no precedence over Schedule 2(2A)(b), (c) and (d). We are discussing giving it greater precedence than it has under the Government's provision.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is right. I was simply saying that in a sense the Government have taken this point already and that the amendment gives even greater precedence to that point. The clause raises the whole question of the role of the traffic commissioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough stated rightly that I would wish to do away entirely with the role of the traffic commissioners in the granting or withholding of licences for bus operators, with one crucial exception in respect of the safety of the buses provided.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East said that the criteria applied by the commissioners were in many respects archaic. I agree with him. I do not believe that we shall be able to produce the reforms we want unless we are able to liberalise the laws governing the traffic commissioners. I believe that the criteria which the traffic commissioners are directed to take into account under New Clause No. 4, relating to Clauses 1 and 2, are set in a world of make-believe.
Let us just examine the obligations that are laid upon the county councils by Clauses 1 and 2. In Clause 1 county councils are required
to develop policies which will promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the county's needs".
That kind of jargon is far removed from the true needs of the travelling public.
In Clause 2 we are invited to take refuge in a five-year plan. That is to provide solace for our constituents who wish to travel. Five-year plans are well known in countries well to the east of us in Europe. They are the refuge of the planners, of Ministers and of civil servants who believe that their wisdom is superior to the wisdom of the market place. My anxiety about New Clause No. 4 arises because my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough appears to be mesmerised by the words of the planners.
I do not believe that traffic commissioners, however wise, and even though they are appointed by a Minister as distinguished as the Under-Secretary, will be able, in conjunction with the county council, to provide a passenger transport service which is better able to meet the needs of the travelling public than would be


provided if we were to abolish the traffic commissioners and repeal Clauses 1 and 2. That point marks my respectful difference of view with my Front Bench.
If we are to have Clauses 1 and 2—and I should be happy to scrap not only those clauses but the whole Bill—my hon. Friend's clause is a modest improvement. If we are to give credence to and accept the principle of a five-year plan, and if we are to lay a duty upon the county councils, it is right that a priority should be given to the role of the traffic commissioners over and above that specified in Schedule 2.
But I give my hon. Friend this warning: I do not believe that even his new clause will give the travelling public that facility for transport that he seeks to achieve. I believe that a more radical approach to the problem of transport is required, which is that those who wish to provide a service to the public should be allowed to do so without let or hindrance from the traffic commissioners. Their role should be confined to ensuring—and this is of key importance—that those vehicles that are available to transport the public are as safe as the genius of man can provide.
I shall support the clause. It is a modest improvement to the Bill, but a more radical solution is required, one that I believe in due time the House will come to accept as inevitable and desirable.

Mr. John Wells: The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) made such an excellent speech that I should like merely to delete "Leicester" and substitute "Maidstone", delete "city" and substitute "borough" and say every word that he said.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I enjoy a municipal bus undertaking, an excellent undertaking but absolutely hamstrung by the traffic commissioners. When it seeks to make itself more profitable by doing this and that which it can do without permission, it puts the wind up the independent operators, who write to me and everyone else and are perfectly legitimate in their concern. If only the traffic commissioners were instructed most rigorously to widen their scope I believe that my borough council could run an even better transport undertaking than it does without putting the wind up the independent

operators. Therefore, I most heartily welcome the clause.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) in that I believe that "traffic commissioners" are dirty words. The man in the street has no experience of them except when week by week or month by month he reads in the local newspaper that the traffic commissioners have authorised a 2p, 5p, 10p or 50p increase. All that the man in the bus knows is that the traffic commissioners are the fall guys who put more on him.

Mr. Gow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wells: No. My hon. Friend had a good go.
The traffic commissioners are viewed by the man in the bus as the niggers in the woodpile. Although one realises that there are escalating costs and that the claims for increased fares are very justified, to enable the council to maintain the quality of the service and to enable its operators to be paid a proper wage, the fact remains that the man in the street has a poor idea of the traffic commissioners.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is a man of many qualities and of many failings, and one of his failings is that he saw fit to abolish resale price maintenance. He set himself up as a Sir Galahad who would abolish restrictive practices of all sorts. But the traffic commissioners system is probably one of the most unpleasant restrictive practices remaining in our country, and if Sir Galahad—who sometimes sits at this point on the Bench where I am standing now—had seen fit to abolish the traffic commissioners, that might have been a great deal wiser for the nation as a whole than tinkering with resale price maintenance. But I do not want to stray too far into that now.
I think it imperative that the House support the new clause to give greater flexibility and power to those local authorities which are doing a good job. I do not wish to weary the House with parochial matters, and I respect the nice way in which the hon. Member for Leicester, East said his piece, but in Kent we have a particularly troublesome problem in that London Transport's area


stretches out very nearly to the boundaries of my constituency, and certainly into the constituency where I live.
There used to be absolutely no mutual knowledge of day-to-day activity between London Transport and the nationalised bus company. Surely, this is a realm of activity in which the traffic commissioners should knock such people's heads together in order to give a better service to the bus-using public. If we could make use of the traffic commissioners, so long as we have them, that would be all to the good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) proposes in his new clause that the traffic commissioners should give particular attention to Clauses 1 and 2. Hon. Members who have spoken thus far have talked of counties, cities and other great places, but, representing the place that I do represent, I am delighted to note that non-metropolitan districts also will have a crack of the whip. I hope, therefore, that the new clause will be added to the Bill.

Mr. John Ellis: So far in the debate, the traffic commissioners have taken a bit of a hammering. It has been an interesting debate, but I wish to vouchsafe one or two of my own fears so that we may have some balance here. I can well understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) says. In an area such as mine, where we have only the Lincolnshire Road Car Company and some private operators perhaps running specialist services, I should not like the traffic commissioners to be swept away, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) suggested they should be.
In my area it would be fairly easy to run a profitable small bus undertaking in the area around Scunthorpe or Brigg where people have to come in from the villages. One could bring them in during the morning and take them home in the evening—perhaps picking up the odd contract from the county council to take schoolchildren to school as well—and not be very interested for the rest of the day. Yet my bus company has the problem of trying to maintain some kind of service during the day for the people in the villages who need it.
Therefore, I should fear the economic consequences for the routes which are

already trembling on the edge. If, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne wants, market forces operated, they could well be swept away, with deleterious consequences for pretty well everyone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East put a compelling argument. As he said, the sole criterion should not be that somebody has a God-given right to operate a service. The true consideration should be the good of the community as a whole. The traffic commissioners should look at it in this light: "We shall not allow this because, in effect, what this man wants to do is to cream off the profitable part of the day and leave the other operator with the periods when a service is expected but there is no return, or there is even a loss." That should be the criterion in such a situation as my hon. Friend described, when people are offered either no service or a diminishing service and are suffering as a consequence. My hon. Friend has a good point there.
9.45 p.m.
I hope that many traffic commissioners will read this debate. I think that the traffic commissioners in my area have sometimes adopted a dog in the manger attitude when someone has wanted to put on a specialist service to take people from a village to hospital, for example. They may have felt it right not to object in those circumstances, but it is often a matter of balance.
I thought that it was refreshing that a Conservative, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells), should extol the virtues of his local borough bus service against the independents. I think that was what he said. It was a fair point, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. But I do not agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I do not support the new clause, for the reasons which I have stated. But I hope that my hon. Friend will send a message to the traffic commissioners in this vein: that the criterion that they operate should be the good of the whole of the community as regards the services that an operator can give. If it is a question of an operator being given a privileged position because he has always had it, I suggest that is no good reason for it. The sole criterion at the end of the day must be service to the people in the area.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Some hon. Members may recall at the end of the war the famous chestnut of the American Service man walking down Whitehall who stopped and asked a policeman on which side the War Office was, to which the policeman replied "We hope that it is on our side, but it might be on the enemy's." If any hon. Member were to be asked by any of his constituents on which side the traffic commissioners were, I am sure that he would have great difficulty in answering that question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) pointed out that many bus operators consider a traffic commissioner to be someone who stops bus services from running when they are really needed. They consider that traffic commissioners prevent small bus operators from operating bus services which villagers require for shopping and other purposes.
I am delighted that the new clause has been tabled. In some way it helps to define the responsibilities of the traffic commissioners. Whenever I visit any village in my constituency I get complaints about the bus services. It is always the dog in the manger traffic commissioner who stops people from doing what they want to do. As a Member of Parliament, I have failed to discover what traffic commissioners are responsible for. I should like the Minister to define how traffic commissioners are appointed, what is the purpose of their appointment and what are their terms of reference. I have found great difficulty in having those matters defined.
I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I may be prejudiced about this matter, but, if my memory serves me right, the traffic commissioners who operate in my area have the advantage of living in Eastbourne. Much as I admire Eastbourne, because it is represented by such a fine Member of Parliament, I have in some ways to consider the traffic commissioners there as enemies of my constituents. I dislike anybody who in no way attempts to give my constituents the transport services which they require.
A number of villages in my area need a bus service particularly on certain days of the week when people wish to go shopping. However, I am always being

told that the traffic commissioners arrange the bus services in such a way that, for instance, if somebody wishes to travel from Romney Marsh to Rye to go shopping, he has to spend the whole day in Rye because he cannot get a bus back to Romney until late afternoon. An independent bus operator, on the other hand, would know the requirements of the various villages and would cater for them.
I believe that this new clause has been cleverly drafted because it defines the responsibilities of the traffic commissioners. Strange though it may seem, it envisages the possibility that the traffic commissioners exist to give the public the service they want. Surely that is what hon. Members are in this House to facilitate. I do not see how anybody could object to this clause because its purpose is to lay down responsibilities.
We in Kent face many transport problems. Many people moved out to Kent because they were promised cheap rail fares. We all know that rail fares have now been trebled and people cannot afford to travel. Furthermore, many railway lines in Kent have been closed. We were told that they would be replaced by bus services. But that has not happened. The reason for that situation is that the traffic commissioners have not had an opportunity to hear the voices of the electorate.
We in this House represent a democracy. This clause lays down the responsibilities of the elected members of county councils in setting out criteria for which the traffic commissioners are responsible in carrying out their duties. It is a most straightforward clause. I do not see why the Minister has not risen to his feet to accept the clause, which was moved so reasonably. We could then have proceeded with other amendments. I wait with impatience to hear the Minister's arguments.
I once had the honour and privilege of fighting the Minister in an election. On one occasion we had a meeting in the little village of Brookland, a village with a delightful spire, which the Minister no doubt remembers well. I wish he would come along with me tomorrow and explain to those villagers why he is opposing this clause and why he is seeking to hide behind the traffic commissioners. I hope he will be able to tell those villagers why they cannot have


a proper bus service. Why do they have to wait until the early evening to obtain a return bus service? How can members of the public get to their destinations and back within a reasonable time if there are no proper services? I believe that this is a most sensible clause, and I await with impatience to hear the Minister's reply.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). We wait with impatience to hear the reply of the Minister. Those of us who served during the 20 sittings of the Standing Committee know what a reasonable person the Minister is and how he responds to our excellent propositions. We know that he will respond well to the excellent case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). We also hope that he will respond to the sound voices behind him, such as that of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley), who put the matter as well as did any of my hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) made a statesmanlike speech, although it may not have been delivered in his usual effervescent way. That was a little distressing, because it meant that there was little in it to criticise. At least he took the side of the traffic commissioners in a balanced way. He did not want them swept away, although in some way they have been dogs in the manger in his area. If he is in favour of traffic commissioners, one might have thought that he would favour this modest new clause.
The traffic commissioners were much discussed in Committee, buffetted from one side of the ocean to the other. In terms of glory and eloquence, my lion. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) called for their abolition. In almost the next breath, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and I tried to promote them into an appellate tribunal. Thus, we have not yet got it right. I agree that it is not yet time to sweep them completely away. We have to find the correct role for them. Many aspects of their work should continue, particularly safety, and so on, which few people could do better. But the balance is wrong.
The Bill builds up local democracy. This is the opposite of my last argument

today. Where is local democracy in this respect? The Labour Party has trumpeted the powers being given to counties and districts. One of the most telling points of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough was that our perseverance in Committee over Government opposition resulted in a Government amendment on this point.
Counties and districts are now happy together and do not require us to keep the House up to all hours of the night. We can divert all our attention to the traffic commissioners and to what happens when they are confronted by the counties and the districts.
Clause 1 refers to divers duties to be put upon counties and districts. It speaks of
the county council, acting in consultation with public passenger transport service operators and district councils
—I cannot remember which way the Liberal Party voted, if indeed it was represented at the time, but our triumph is that we added district councils—
to develop policies which will promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the county's needs".
Any county will be consumed with breathless anticipation of plans to come. Those expectations can be destroyed by an undemocratic body.
The clause goes on:
(ii) for that purpose to take such steps as the council think appropriate for promoting
—here again we take off into the glory of statutory drafting—
the co-ordination, amalgamation and reorganisation of road passenger transport undertakings in the county;".
It goes on from there, but I shall not take up any further time by quoting any other clauses.

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Transport Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Graham and Mr. Harper were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but no


Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Ordered,
That the Transport Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I resume my feet in almost as much surprise as when I sat down. I shall now continue—the House having had a worthy break from my quotations from various clauses in the Bill. For a bit of variety we ought to switch to Schedule 2. I was building up the anticipation of the House by referring to the expectations of the normal county dweller which will be beating in his breast when he reads Clause 1. When we come to Schedule 2, which deals with the traffic commissioners, and we see there a classic illustration of the two parties, one being democratic with all the local democracy of this Bill and the other being an appointed, undemocratic and often criticised body.
I come to Schedule 2(1)(2A) and resume where my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne left off. The same sense of the new clause is included here, but it is not given sufficient priority. The point I am specifically making is that this operates against the expectations of Clause 1, because we have in Schedule 2(1)(2A) a reference to
the interests of the public".
I pause there to suggest that that is a commendable thing, upon which I congratulate the Government and, in particular, the Under-Secretary of State. That is a promotion from the past criteria of the traffic commissioners which is long overdue. After
the interests of the public
we then have paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). But it is only in (a) that we have the corresponding reference which grants the power to negative all the verbiage in Clause 1 about which I was talking.
Paragraph (a) provides that the traffic commissioners shall have regard in particular to

any transport policies or plans which have been made by the local authorities concerned and have been drawn to the commissioners' attention by those authorities.
The following paragraphs set out a whole lot of other criteria which could be in conjunction with or in direct opposition to that already considered by the county council, namely, the transport requirements of the area as a whole, the need to provide and maintain efficient services to meet those requirements, and the suitability of the routes. In addition, at some late hour tomorrow morning we shall be considering another very worthy amendment about the disabled. That is the situation, and I mention it because it provides the detail to what hon. Members on both sides of the House have been saying.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe made a statesmanlike speech, and there was not a great deal to criticise in it. However, being unable to criticise the hon. Member's speech, I ought to direct the attention of the House to this new clause. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State is about to rise and accept this new clause and htat he will deal with the valid argument that I am about to advance.
New Clause No. 4, as drafted, gives priority to the counties in terms of the traffic commissioners. The traffic commissioners shall give first consideration to the transport policies and plans of the local authorities. However, there is no related amendment concerning Schedule 2, so we shall have a completely new clause which says that the commissioners shall give first consideration to the county plans. But then, when we come to the exercise of the traffic commissioners' powers, which is what Schedule 2 is about, that remains exactly as it is.
It may be that I am making a point that the Under-Secretary of State intended to make, but I hope that he will say in his nice way that the Government intend to propose additional amendments to Schedule 2 to make it even stronger than it is now.
At the moment, if this new clause is accepted, all that is necessary is that the commissioners give first consideration to the TPPs of the local authorities, and then go straight on, having looked at the detail of how they should give that first consideration, to consider the detail set


out in Schedule 2, which provides exactly the same provisions in paragraph (a), coming close to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne was discussing.
I hope that the Government, with the assistance and drafting aid at their disposal,

will say, through the Under Secretary of State, that they accept the new clause and will help the House further by tidying up Schedule 2 as well. This is a worthy proposal, and we wait impatiently for the Government to accept it.

Mr. Horam: This debate has been positively aglow with reasonableness and common sense, with statesmanlike attitudes being adopted on both sides of the House and with compliments flowing from one side to the other in the most amazing fashion. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) actually asked me not only to accept the new clause but also to clear up any minor complications arising from its conflict with other parts of the Bill.
Listening to the speeches of the Opposition, I nurtured the suspicion that, not having succeeded with their frontal attack in Committee, they were now trying the soft sell approach and seeking to lure me into accepting the new clause. It may be that the hon. Member for Leominster was chosen deliberately to conclude the debate in his customary mellifluous tones, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), who is always so reasonable about these matters, having opened it. They chose to hide such hon. Members as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who rained hammer blows on the Bill in Committee and on the traffic commissioners in particular. He was very muted in the course of this debate. It may be that he was being kept on a leash by the Opposition Front Bench. Having had that suspicion, I cast it aside in the interests of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who is hoping for a brief speech.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough is a reasonable and honest man. He agreed that the Conservative Party was divided on its views of traffic commissioners. He congratulated us that we had ironed out some of the complexities. He is a knowledgeable man. Being knowledgeable and reasonable about transport, he will surely agree with the reasonable proposition that, while I accept that from time to time the traffic commissioners have not allowed proposals to go forward which would have been more economic and made more sense, we must also agree that, overall, the traffic commissioners have preserved a bus system which, as it happens, is better than that of almost any comparable industrialised country. If one weighs the advantages and the disadvantages, one has to accept that we have retained the most developed bus system in the Western world and we have also

the traffic commissioners. The two are not unconnected. There are problems from time to time, but the traffic commissioners have helped to preserve a bus system. If we sweep that aside or give the county councils a carte blanche, which appears to have been the central viewpoint of the Conservative Party, there are enormous dangers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) said that he had no great confidence in the county councils. Many of my hon. Friends would agree with that. Though many county councils have been good, many have been bad and have taken anti-public transport stands. They have not preserved the systems and the interests of their local populations and have taken a ratepayer-oriented view to cut services at all costs without considering the needs of the area. Many county councils have taken a minimalist view and have considered simply the economics and, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne would agree, the free market solutions when they are inapposite. That is the first reason that we must preserve a role for the traffic commissioners.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough will concede, the traffic commissioners go wider than the county councils. We cannot simply confine consideration of a bus system to a particular county. Some of them are extremely small, particularly the Home Counties. There are many cross-boundary services. There has to be some method of dealing with that situation.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough said that the traffic commissioners have a reputation for independence and fair mindedness. We throw that away at great risk to a sensible system. If the county councils are to be given more power, we have to consider all the three points which I have mentioned, which are, essentially, conceded by the more reasonable Members of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Fry: Will the Minister accept that the Association of District Councils is now happy with the kind of consultation that it will have with the county councils means that it wishes to have this proposal accepted? Does not that mean that most local authorities will want the plans that are to be prepared to go forward and that therefore they will want those


plans to have first consideration? No one is suggesting the sweeping away of the traffic commissioners. I should have thought that even the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) would accept that the Association of District Councils should be interested in the new clause being put into the Bill.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman should not quote our successes against us. I do not think that the ADC is happy with the situation. It is willing to accept the sort of arrangement that we have come to, but there will still be disagreements between county councils and district councils. We have devised a formula which enables them to ventilate the disagreements, but it is going farther than the truth to say that the Association is happy.
I have given the general reasons for preserving the role of the traffic commissioners. The Opposition wish us to give "first consideration" to the plans of county councils. The term "first consideration" implies a form of weighting being given to the views of county councils, without saying what that weighting will be.
The hon Member for Wellingborough drew an analogy with the Children Act 1975, but the parliamentary draftsman of the Children Act, Mr. Bennion, has written in an article headed "'First Consideration': A Cautionary Tale":
When, in drafting the Bill for the Children Act 1975, I was asked to use the phrase 'first consideration' I refused.
He went on to explain why. He said:
The Lord Chancellor circulated a memorandum which said 'Since "first consideration" is put forward in Parliament by those who do not favour paramountcy, it must be assumed that they are seeking to occupy an intermediate position … [but] … the word "first" adds nothing. [The intention is clearly] that the child's interest is to be weighted—but the question of weighted by how much is not answered. … Since the object … is to give guidance to those concerned with difficult questions of adoption, Parliament would be failing in its duty if it gave such guidance in a form which raised more questions than it settled. Parliament did fail in its duty. The Lord Chancellor's wise advice was brushed aside, and the Lords wrote "first consideration" into the Bill.'
He concluded:
People in Parliament need to think more deeply before forcing their language into Bills.

Victims of statutory obscurity should remember that it is not always the draftsman's fault".
If we accept "first consideration", we are running all those risks. Not only are we not clarifying or simplifying but we are adding complexity and uncertainty. That is clear from the remarks made by Mr. Bennion in that article.
I am loath to say that this is a simple Bill. It is already a complex Bill and the addition of further complexity is something that the Opposition are always preaching against.
I think that we have got the balance right in the arrangements we have made between the county councils and the traffic commissioners. We have said, for the first time, that traffic commissioners must take into account the views of county councils, though not ignore the views of district councils, bus operators and trade unions. They must look at all those views on a par and not give undue weight to one set of views in judging the interests of the public.
The hon. Member for Leominster quoted the phrase in the Bill that says that the commissioners must look overall at the interests of the public, giving particular attention to various interests, plans and groups such as those I have mentioned, without giving any group paramountcy. That is an equitable and suitable arrangement.
I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East. I know his concern about this problem because if I remember rightly in the last Session of Parliament he had a Private Members Bill on the subject of cross-boundary services between Leicester city and the surrounding countryside. This is a very real problem, not only in Leicester but in other parts of the country as well.
The right way forward in this case is for a proper agreement between the county council, the district council and the operator to sort out what may well be a messy and rigid situation in which people are paying different fares and there are routes on which buses cannot pick up.
This agreement process is happening up and down the country. A number of agreements have now been concluded in


Lancashire, and I pay tribute to the Lancashire County Council for doing this in a sensible and straightforward way. It has concluded agreements which have sorted out cross-boundary problems. I believe that the sort of arrangement in the Bill will facilitate agreements between the county, the district and the operator.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East said that he had no great confidence in the track record of the county council. Therefore, would he be happy with a situation in which the county council view had to be paramount? Would he be satisfied with the county council having "first consideration" even if the district council disagrees with what the county proposes—particularly if the district council has had a bus operation running for many years? If the district disagrees with what the county proposes for Leicester, for example, when Leicester is in the situation of having run buses for a long time, would my hon. Friend be happy that the county council's views prevailed, without any possibility of working out an agreement?
The fact is that the Opposition's new clause would work against the sort of agreement that would be in the interests of the people of Leicester.

Mr. Bradley: Of course I would not be happy with such a situation. But, as I pointed out before, the underlying assumption is that there will be agreement between the authorities after consultation. "Local authorities" is the term used in the Opposition's new clause—not one particular authority, but several local authorities. The underlying assumption is that there will be agreement. It would be a tragedy if that agreement were to be completely negatived by the traffic commissioners adopting historic attitudes.

Mr. Horam: The presumption of my hon. Friend's argument—and I entirely agree with him—is that there should be agreement. But what if there is not agreement? Then one must have a mediating body to sort out what should happen, and this is a role that the traffic commissioners can fulfil. If there is agreement there is no problem. The traffic commissioners are not likely to go against a solution agreed between the district councils and the county councils.
I urge my hon. Friend to consider this point very seriously because I believe that his interest would not be served by the new clause put forward by the Opposition since it would give "first consideration" to the views of the county council. The new clause would mean that there was less likelihood of an agreement, and that the sort of agreement achieved would not necessarily be in the interests of the district council.
For these reasons I feel that the balance in the Bill is right. We are making a move in the direction that the Opposition want—giving the county councils plans greater importance in the whole process of decision making. To put in the sort of words that they wish to add would simply bring about uncertainty when we want clarity and simplicity.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Everyone who has listened to the debate will have found the reply of the Under-Secretary of State disappointing. That thinking will be shared on both sides of the House. The only argument that the hon. Gentleman adduced concerned the phrase "first consideration", which was used in the Children Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that it is an unsatisfactory phrase. I am bound to remind him that it was used by his own Government. Only two years ago his right hon. Friend, who is now the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, argued when piloting the Children Bill through the House that the phrase was ideal and all-encompassing. If that is the limit of the hon. Gentleman's argument, his argument falls down.
There have been some interesting and good speeches made by my hon. Friends, but perhaps the most impressive speech was made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley). The hon. Gentleman made an interesting and reasonable criticism of the traffic commissioner system. The line of his criticism of the system was basically that which we have followed consistently over the past two or three years. The fact is that the system is out of date. It was based upon the 1928 Royal Commission on Transport. It was based upon the conditions obtaining in transport in the decade after the First World War. It was encompassed in the 1930 Act and it now suffers from a whole range of disadvantages.
The first and most obvious disadvantage is the delay that is built into the system. The second disadvantage is one of cost. That is an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has raised time and time again. That has militated against the small provider. Thirdly, there is the basic argument of accountability. The Government must make up their minds. They are saying that they want local devolution and decisions going down to the county councils and local authorities. When we seek to help them to achieve that objective they say "Basically we cannot trust the county councils. We cannot trust the local authorities to take the right decisions."
The Government must come clean on their view of transport. We have proposed a reasonable addition to the Bill. We could have gone in two ways. We could have given the commissioners' powers to the county councils as we proposed in Committee. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that that proposal was defeated. Therefore, we have taken

Division No. 216]
AYES
[10.29 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Farr, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Alison, Michael
Fell, Anthony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Arnold, Tom
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Jill


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knox, David


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lamont, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Forman, Nigel
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Le Merchant, Spencer


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Benyon, W.
Fry, Peter
MacGregor, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Biffen, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Body, Richard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael


Bradley, Tom
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mather, Carol


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Brittan, Leon
Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick


Brooke, Peter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Buck, Antony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miscampbell, Norman


Budgen, Nick
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bulmer, Esmond
Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Burden, F. A.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Montgomery, Fergus


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Moore, John (Croydon C)


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint


Channon, Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hannam, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cope, John
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Costain, A. P.
Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Crouch, David
Havers, Sir Michael
Neave, Airey


Crowder, F. P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hodgson, Robin
Onslow, Cranley


Durant, Tony
Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow West)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hooson, Emlyn
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (Workington)


Elliott, Sir William
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pattie, Geoffrey


Emery, Peter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Percival, Ian


Eyre, Reginald
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)

the alternative approach by placing upon the commissioners a responsibility to give first consideration to the local authorities.

We want to see new passenger services developing naturally, and the best judges of need are representatives of the local people. The county councillors know the local situation. They have the responsibility to co-ordinate local transport and they should be given the power to do so. We want to see new transport services develop. We want to see the reform of the traffic commissioner system.

Anyone who has listened to the debate will be deeply disappointed with the Under-Secretary's trivial reply. The hon. Gentleman has failed to take on board any of the major points that have been made over the past one and a half hours. I must insist that we take this issue to a Division. I urge the House to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 203.

Raison, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Sims, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Rhodes James, R.
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Walters, Dennis


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wells, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Sproat, Iain
Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stainton, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Younger, Hon George


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)



Royle, Sir Anthony
Stokes, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sainsbury, Tim
Stradling, Thomas, J.
Sir George Young and


Scott, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Jim Lester.


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Freud, Clement
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Ovenden, John


Anderson, Donald
Gilbert, Dr John
Palmer, Arthur


Archer, Peter
Golding, John
Pardoe, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gould, Bryan
Park, George


Atkinson, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Parker, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Parry, Robert


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Grocott, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Bates, Alf
Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Bean, R. E.
Harper, Joseph
Penhaligon, David


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Price, William (Rugby)


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Bishop, E. S.
Horam, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les
Roderick, Caerwyn


Buchanan, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.


Canavan, Dennis
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Roper, John


Cant, R. B.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rose, Paul B.


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rowlands, Ted


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Janner, Greville
Sandelson, Neville


Clemitson, Ivor
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
John, Brynmor
Sever, John


Cohen, Stanley
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Cowans, Harry
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Snape, Peter


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Cronin, John
Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Davidson, Arthur
Lee, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stoddart, David


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stott, Roger


Deakins, Eric
Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dempsey, James
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Dewar, Donald
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Doig, Peter
MacKenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Dormand, J. D.
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristoll NW)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Madden, Max
Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Magee, Bryan
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
Mahon, Simon
Tomlinson, John


Edge, Geoff
Marks, Kenneth
Tuck, Raphael


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


English, Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Ennals, David
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Evans, John (Newton)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Ward, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Watkins, David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mitchell, Austin
Wellbeloved, James


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Welsh, Andrew


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Ford, Ben
Noble, Mike
Whitlock, William


Forrester, John
Oakes, Gordon
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Ogden, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Freeson, Reginald
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)







Wise, Mrs Audrey
Wrigglesworth, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Woodall, Alec
Young, David (Bolton E)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Woof, Robert

Mr. Ted Graham.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause No. 7

CONCESSIONARY TRAVEL—REPORT BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES

"All local authorities with passenger transport responsibilities shall within a year of the passing of this Act report to the Secretary of State the extent to which they have implemented or proposed schemes for concessionary travel under the provisions of section 138 of the Act of 1968.".—[Mr. Farr.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we may also take the following new clause:

New Clause No. 10

CONCESSIONARY FARE SCHEMES

"(1) All those county councils who have under this Act to prepare and publish an annual public passenger transport plan shall include in the plan, whenever it is published or republished, the following matters relating to travel concession schemes (meaning schemes for the reduction of waiver of fares or charges on public passenger transport services in favour of special categories of persons).

(2) The matters to be included in the plan are:—

(a) an account of what (if any) travel concession schemes are operative in the county or planned for early introduction, being schemes which are wholly or partly financed, or the subject of financial contribution by the council themselves or by any of the district councils in the county;
(b) the nature and extent of the concessions available under those schemes;
(c) proposals for introducing new travel concession schemes such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above, or for extending or improving existing schemes; and
(d) the reasons why (if it be the case) in any part of the county either no such schemes are operative or existing schemes are inadequate."

We may also take Amendment No. 2, in Clause 1, page 2, line 19 leave out 'section 2' and insert
sections 2 and (Concessionary Fare Schemes).".

Mr. Farr: The clause calls for reports by local authorities on the extent to which they have implemented concessionary travel schemes under Section 138 of the Transport Act 1968. My hon. Friends and I feel that the time is probably right, 10 years after the 1968 Act was put on the statute book, for the Secretary of State to show a greater interest in the activity or inactivity of local authorities in this respect. Economic conditions until this year necessitated the Government's banning any new or improved schemes for concessionary travel for a certain period. Happily, this year these restrictions have been withdrawn, and in my view it is up to the Government to take a far more positive interest in what is happening over the structure of concessionary fares throughout the country.
The House had the benefit of a short debate on the subject of concessionary travel on 3rd March—

Mr. Adley: A very good debate.

Mr. Farr: As is said by my hon. Friend, who took a prominent part, it was an excellent debate. The Minister was good enough to recognise when he wound up the debate how unfair the present unequal availability of concessionary travel could be to pensioners, the disabled and the blind.
In my own constituency in Leicester shire in a space of five or six miles there are three different types of concessionary travel available. In the Harborough District Council area there is none, although I understand that a scheme is being proposed. In the Oadby and Wigston District Council area next door a pensioner is entitled to £3 a year by way of free travel. In the city of Leicester, also next door, a pensioner is entitled to free travel anywhere for just 2p.
All the pensioners, the disabled and the blind are treated in the same way for pensions, allowances and other payments in these areas. They receive similar weekly payments. Yet the weekly expenditure on transport alone for someone living in the Harborough District Council area, for instance, where no concessions are available, can be excessive. This area, like many others in the country, is composed of a town and a large number


of small or large communities living in villages often with no shops, or very few. It is more often than not necessary for the pensioner to travel by bus to shop and to collect his pension.
Since the debate in March the position has become more and more aggravated in many country areas by an accelerated closure of rural sub-post offices, partly occasioned, I believe, by the Post Office's pursuing a rather aggressive economic policy, which has had the effect of closing many sub-post offices and forcing pensioners and others dependent upon them to go by public transport to towns to collect their pensions.
What happens to someone who lives in one of a dozen or 15 little communities in my constituency who wants to go into the city of Leicester to shop? There are no shops, post offices or facilities in many of these areas. To travel from some of these little communities, only five or six miles from the centre of the city of Leicester, to shop, one has to pay a return bus fare of no less than 90p. That is the full fare. It is thus the pensioners who live in communities outside towns and shopping centres who are the hardest hit, in two specific ways.
First, they are hit by being furthest away from shops and so on. The journey is longer and more expensive. Secondly, it is often the rural or semi-rural areas where the need is greatest that at present have least help by way of concessionary travel schemes sponsored by the local authorities.
I should like to quote briefly from the Minister's speech on 3rd March, when he referred to the applicability of concessionary travel fares nationally and said:
A good deal of the debate concentrated on the main dissatisfaction among hon. Members, namely, the large variations throughout the country. There are some areas with very good schemes and other areas with no schemes at all or poor schemes. A figure of £86 million is spent in England and Wales on travel concessionary schemes for the elderly, the blind and the disabled in the current year, and no less than 70 per cent. of that sum is expended in the metropolitan area of the Greater London Council."—[Official Report, 3rd March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 925.]
That extract from the Minister's speech discloses the sort of inequality which is causing a good deal of dissatisfaction generally throughout the country.
Despite what I take to be the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) sitting here on my right, I shall not weary the House by quoting lengthy extracts from my own speech on that occasion—worthy of attention though I may think them to be—but I shall dwell on developments since then. I have received a great deal of correspondence from all over the country from people who have been concerned and have themselves made so far vain efforts to achieve some measure of equality or recognition by the councils in their areas that action should be taken.
I have a large file of letters, but I shall refer to only two or three. Mr Leslie Sharp, for example, a county councillor in the Isle of Wight, has written to tell me that he has prevailed on his Member of Parliament to support a concessionary fare scheme for the Isle of Wight, where there is not one at the moment. Mr. Peters, the secretary of the Surrey Association of Trades Councils, registered with the TUC, has expressed his full support for a scheme of concessionary fares for the aged on a half-price basis.
10.45 p.m.
I have had many letters from North Wales. In particular, a Mrs. Margaret Hutchinson tells me that she was forcibly struck by the fact that, when she had two elderly pensioner friends from Yorkshire to stay with her, they not only had the privilege of free travel at their home in Yorkshire but were given in addition £1 worth of free tokens to spend on local buses wherever they were on holiday. That struck her forcefully because where she lives in North Wales no concessionary fare scheme exists.

Mr. John Ellis: Those are impressive facts. What is the political complexion of the council which gives those munificent conditions? Is it Labour?

Mr. Adley: Party politics is all that interests the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Farr: I could not possibly say. I know that the two friends came from Yorkshire.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: We can guess.

Mr. Farr: I have had letters on similar lines from Glamorgan and other parts of Wales. Letters have come also from Essex, Devon and Milton Keynes.
In our view on these Benches, New Clause No. 7 offers the very least that Parliament should do. It would cost the Government nothing. Indeed, it would be only a gesture. At least, the Government should recognise the importance of the subject, and our hope in putting this thought before the House tonight is that the Government of the day will before long think seriously about making further advances.
By accepting the clause, the Government would incur no cost but they would give practical expression to the good will which, if I may say so, the Minister indicated on 3rd March. But some of us wish to go further. We want the Government to think along the lines of requiring a national minimum half-price scheme in the not-too-distant future for the disabled, the blind and the elderly.
I am delighted to see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) with us again. I rejoice to see that he is making a rapid recovery from the accident which upset and detained him in hospital for some time. He is an authority on the problems in his constituency and in adjacent constituencies. If he seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that he will describe the special problems in his constituency where the local authority, with the best will in the world, cannot afford a reasonable and effective concessionary fares scheme.

Mr. John Ellis: Vote catching.

Mr. Farr: I should like to think that before too long the House will turn its attention to the possibility of the Government of the day establishing a special fund to assist those local authorities which have not the ability to raise a great deal of money from their rates to finance a scheme providing a minimum of half-price travel.

Mr. Ashton: New Clause No. 10, standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, is also to be considered with New Clause No. 7.
I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who has family connections with my constituency, because he has a creditable record on concessions to pensioners for television licences, fares and other worthwhile schemes. Unfortunately, he was a bit

devious by not stating the political complexions of the district and county councils which refuse to implement such schemes for pensioners.
I must apologise to the House for the fact that New Clause No. 10 and Amendment No. 2 do not go far enough, but they are bound by the Money Resolution. To keep within the bounds of order, it was necessary to table them as they stand as opposed to blunt directives to the Government to bring in totally free or at least half-fare bus passes for pensioners everywhere.
I do not have to remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has a good record in this respect, that the Labour Party manifesto on which the Government were elected stated:
Further measures will be introduced to … expand the system of free and concessionary fares for old people, the blind and the disabled.
The hon. Member for Harborough did not point out that it is predominantly Tory-controlled councils which refuse to bring in any scheme whatever or, alternatively, which bring in miserly token schemes of £4 or £5 a year because they are under pressure being situated near big cities.
There are 56 districts which have no concessionary fare schemes. Of those, 19 are Conservative-controlled, and the rest are independent. We know from experience that independent councils in rural areas invariably favour a Tory rather than a Labour policy.

Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House in answer to whose question it was that he solicited that information and whether any one of those local authorities runs its own transport undertaking?

Mr. Ashton: The question of running their own transport undertakings is irrelevant.

Mr. Adley: Is it?

Mr. Ashton: In many instances schemes have been negotiated with districts or counties which do not run their own bus services. A concessionary scheme can be implemented if there is the will. I shall come to the financial angle later.
Every Member will, I know, have to rely on quoting his own area. In my


area, the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham City situation is a downright disgrace. Before local government reorganisation in 1974, it was apparent that many cities under Labour control had concessionary fares systems. Those cities were then incorporated into county councils. Because the vast majority of the population live in Nottinghamshire compared with Nottingham City, where pensioners travel relatively short distances, and as two-thirds of the population in the county council, including the city environs, were covered by some kind of scheme, frankly, the councillors in the city, elected by the city, could not give a damn about the furthest part of the county. I am sorry to say that these comments applied to Labour as well as to Conservative councillors.
We all know that where a county has within it a large city, that city provides the majority of the councillors and pensioners, and there is little chance for the councillors from the rural part of the county to enforce their views. The county of Nottinghamshire obtains a massive part of its income from the pits and power stations, with industries in rural areas such as Bassetlaw, and gladly takes two-thirds of the rates from that area, but provides nothing in the way of help to facilitate rural transport for pensioners.
11.0 p.m.
Because the districts in those areas have a scattered population, which means that pensioners have to travel a fair distance, the district council has a very heavy burden to bear. The time has come when concessionary fares must be the responsibility of the county council rather than the district council, because the county council has the higher income and the ability to take on that burden.
The structure of county councils provides for transport committees, whereas district councils do not possess such committees. The subject is often covered by some other committee. Too often the Tory county councils—and the majority of them now are Tory—dodge their responsibilities and do not introduce schemes. I cannot understand why they do not bring in such schemes. In most of the rural areas the voters are Tory, and one would think that a Tory county council would do something for their

Tory voters in the rural areas. But for some reason they do not, even though the provision would be grant-aided.
There is the stupid position where pensioners in rural villages obtain free prescriptions from their doctors but cannot get to the chemist to change that prescription for medicine because they cannot afford the 50p fare to get there. If they go to evening surgery, they find they canot get home afterwards because there is no bus. For example, if they catch the bus from the mining village of Elkesley into Retford to see the doctor, they cannot get back again. Ordinary people have to take a day off work to see the doctor because there are no buses to take them to the evening surgeries.
When I give lifts to young people in my constituency, they say "How did you do your courting, Mr. Ashton?" I tell them "I used to get on the bus". They then say "Well, why don't you provide some buses for us? We have to walk ten miles after seeing our girl friends home." I know that is not related to concessionary fares, but that is the position in rural areas in which rural transport is far worse than it was at the turn of the century. Although one would expect county councils to be putting enormous pressure on the Government to obtain these concessions, we know that they do not press these matters.
Furthermore, one sees empty buses in which seats could be occupied by pensioners. It is surely not beyond the wit and imagination of county councillors to allocate some of those empty seats to pensioners, or to bring in some sort of scheme where the empty seats could be filled by the device of charging half fares for pensioners.
It is often said by Tory Members that pensioners predominate in the county areas. It is said that South coast councils cannot afford these schemes because of the high proportion of pensioners. There is another side to the coin. What about those areas where there is a predominance of children? Those councils could equally take the view "We have many children in our cities and only half fares for them. We cannot afford such provision, so the children must pay full fare." But nobody would dream of taking such a view. Places with many children accept their


responsibilities. It is places with a lot of pensioners which do not.
Instead, a pathetic substitution is practised, as has happened in Nottingham. To dodge its responsibilities, with a great fanfare the county council introduced a community bus. On Monday it runs from village A to village B, on Tuesday from village C to village D and on Wednesday it goes to the local hospital. The service is handed out rather in the same way as years ago the squire would provide a donkey to take an old woman to hospital. And people still have to pay. They do not even get that free. It is just a gimmick.
It is time the county councils were shown up. The hon. Member for Harborough says that the plans should be produced one year after the Bill is enacted. We say that it should be done on 29th April. Councils would then have to state exactly what they were doing in their areas. The public must be made aware that councils can get a Government grant of 61 per cent. towards these concessionary fares—that they have to pay only 39p in the pound.
Are these councils so penny-pinching, so determined to keep the rates down at any cost that they want pensioners to walk two or three miles to the nearest shops or to pay the fare out of their own pockets? I cannot understand the mentality even from a Conservative point of view. If a pensioner can ride free to the shops he has 50p more to spend at the Tory shopkeeper's. I should think Tory shopkeepers would favour these concessions, and would even pay willingly from the rates to provide it. But it is the Tory shopkeepers, who are often the Tory county councillors and district councillors, who are most against it.
Tory Members would do pensioners a favour if they got this across to their own party. I have tried to do so in Bassetlaw. It is Tory councils which are failing to implement this concession. Let us get that clearly on the record.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It is a pleasure to speak in a debate on a subject which can probably be treated in a non-party way. Both new clauses are simple and I hope that both will be accepted. New Clause No. 7 has a great advantage because a report setting out what local authorities are doing will make it plain not just which local authorities

are acting and what they are doing but also their difficulties and the need for some wider system as a matter of national policy. New Clause No. 10 would also be an advantage because it also tries to state the objectives. A statement of what is being done will also show what is not being done.
In the long run, however, a national policy is essential. It is plain that we need a national policy. When one lives in the South-East of England, or in any of the counties near London, one appreciates immediately the immense difference in the counties concerned which cannot afford to operate the scheme which the GLC is able to give. Anyone who knows the general picture knows that the advantages which the GLC is able to give to old-age pensioners, the disabled and the blind, both on the Underground and on the buses, enables those people to get an advantage which is immense.
The great problem of the old, the disabled and the elderly today is loneliness. The one problem which this House can help to solve at a stroke is the problem of loneliness. The problem of loneliness is the problem of not being able to get out to see one's friends or relatives, not being able to get down to the local club, the OAP or the centres, not to be able to get out to get the medicine one needs or not to be able to get out to meet the obligations that one has.
That is the grave problem which has made this picture change. The Conservative Party—it is a perfectly fair criticism to level against it—has always been against subsidies. It has been against subsidies on tobacco for the old. It has been against the subsidy of giving free television, free telephones and matters of that kind. That opposition is based on the very simple principle that such people ought to be given good pensions which are better than those in the general standard of living. The Conservative Party has accepted that as a principle. At the same time, it has recognised that it ought not too easily to draw a line about giving subsidies to old people.

Mr. Ashton: This is a valid point. Is it not a fact that the benefit of a free bus pass is that it is inflation-proofed? If it was free 10 years ago and it is free today, it is inflation-proofed, whereas a better pension is not.

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is an argument that I want to develop. The problem today that has overtaken us is inflation. Those of us who believe—and I am one of them—that one should not try to give subsidies in this area are beginning to recognise that if we do not, we can create great injustice. At present inflation is such that if we do not assist in the area of transport—for the old people, the elderly, the disabled, the blind and others—we shall be unjust. We shall be unjust because there is no way in which we can match up the problem of inflation. We cannot index it in any way. We cannot say "Choose whether you will go to see the supplementary benefit people in Ramsgate or pay £1·30 to get from Birchington to Ramsgatc and back". We cannot say "You have also got to go to hospital, which will cost you another 80p there and back". We cannot say "It will cost you over £1 a week to go twice to the local over 60s club".
We cannot provide in the pension for such things. Because we cannot do so, I think we must change our attitudes. We must try to see whether we can do this by a direct subsidy in this one area. Therefore, I feel that we should change Conservative policy—because it is a change—and we should try to persuade the Labour Government to change their policy.
11.15 p.m.
Some 18 months ago, the right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) was with me in a debate on this very matter, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) as recently as 3rd March. We tried to persuade the Government to take the view that this was a Government responsibility. It is grossly unfair that the big cities with very large rateable value should be able easily to meet this problem, which other parts of the country cannot do easily. They can do it if they give it top priority, of course, but if 40 per cent of the rates is to be absorbed by such a scheme, to adopt the figure mentioned by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), it is still a very great task to ask people to pay a substantial increase in their rates to meet it. The hon. Member perhaps does not recognise that in my constituency more than 11,000 people out of a total of 90,000 are on supplementary benefit. Whereas originally I managed to persuade the

council to introduce a scheme—and in the beginning it was extremely valuable because it covered about a quarter of the fare—it is now very difficult to bring it up to date and to inflation-proof it against the background of the rates which would have to be charged to do so.
I was a candidate in Nottingham some years ago. I know that the city could do this. However, the country districts round Nottingham might find it very difficult, from my recollection of those areas, because the power of the rates is in one area. In my own part of the country, the rates are insufficient to carry this.
I venture to suggest that the argument of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw needs to be taken a stage further. It needs to be taken not from the district council, which can do it if it wants, nor from the county council, but from the nation. We should aim—and, given the will of this House, I believe that it could be done—at saying that this is a matter where old-age pensioners, the disabled and the blind should be able to travel at half fare in off-peak periods. I think that they would accept that. There are many parts of the country where it can be a disadvantage to travel during peak hours, and most old people are perfectly happy to travel at times when the buses are relatively empty.
I think that this will come. I hope that my own party will adopt it, that the Labour Party will press it, and that it can be done across the Floor of the House as a benefit to all these people.

Mr. John Ellis: I do not want to take issue with the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), because he spoke with great sincerity, and it is not for me to challenge him when he says as a Conservative that he believes that his party should change its policy. However, the pattern of Labour-controlled and Tory-controlled authorities is such that, without exception, all the authorities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) are Tory or Independent-controlled. There is no Labour or Liberal-controlled authority mentioned in that list.
I think that if the Opposition are honest with themselves, they realise that they are in a very tight corner. We have all received letters from various parts of the country, and I can tell the House that


in Scunthorpe there is a scheme for concessionary fares and that in Glanford, which is my more rural district and which is not Labour-controlled, there is a similar scheme, although it is not as good as Labour's scheme in Scunthorpe. In areas that are not far away, there are Tory councils with no concessionary fare scheme.
I do not agree that we need to pass both new clauses. New Clause No. 10 goes further and puts on more pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I would like to have put in more teeth by ordering authorities to prepare such schemes, but the Financial Resolution to the Bill prevents that.
We suggest that new or improved concessionary fare schemes should be at about half the cost of local fares. This means, in effect, half fares as a national standard, although some local authorities will do better than the minimum. I understand that the Government are to provide £30 million more and what they are planning for local authorities to spend on additional concessionary fares by the end of the decade will be enough to enable them all to introduce off-peak half fares for pensioners and will still allow those who already give more generous concessions to keep them. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) quoted what people in Yorkshire do. It sounded to me like that good South Yorkshire authority that has led the field in this matter.

Mr. Farr: I have striven to avoid party politics. On this side of the House, we have been trying to secure the best deal we can for the disabled, the elderly and the blind. If the hon. Gentleman wants to bring in party politics, let me remind him that it was a Labour Government that was so inefficient that it was the only Government that has felt it necessary to instruct all local authorities to abandon improvement of concessionary fare schemes and not to introduce new schemes. It was only after considerable pressure from this side of the House that they raised the embargo this year. The hon. Gentleman should be a little careful and forget the party politics and think about the elderly people first.

Mr. Ellis: Hon. Members opposite do not like the truth when they hear it. What the hon. Gentleman says was true

for a limited period, but before that time these schemes were running in the majority of Labour-controlled areas. The Opposition have been under pressure from constituents who have been asking why the neighbouring area, which is Labour-controlled, can have concessionary fares while their Tory-controlled area cannot. It has happened time and again and the Opposition Members have to get off the hook. I dealt softly with the hon. and learned Member for Thanes, West because he was honest enough to admit that he was trying to change Conservative policy and he hoped that the party would agree.
We are saying that, for the blind and handicapped, we hope that the Government take the view that they have special needs beyond the elderly. They may, for instance, need to travel further to find suitable work or to use public transport for very short journeys, when other people could walk, or to be escorted when they travel. For all these reasons, we hope that local authorities will introduce all-day concessions for the blind and the handicapped to enable them to get to work. Guide dogs and invalid chairs should be carried free, and where escorts are needed, their fares should be reduced.
Much more money is being given in this area. If I sound a little bitter about this, it is because I am bitter. The Government have already indicated in their transport policy that they are making help available in transport in many ways. If my own local authority wants to stand for election on the basis of keeping the rates down and cutting services, let it do so. In my local authority of Humberside money that has been voted by Parliament by way of the rate support grant to help with transport has been used to keep the rates down. These Conservative authorities that do such things have a great deal to answer for.
Conservative Members should call a party conference and get the Leader of the Opposition to make a speech along the lines of the Tory speeches that have been made tonight. That would be far more effective than putting down amendments to the Bill. It would have a singular effect on Tory-controlled authorities which never have brought in schemes, even when they could have done so, and are still lagging behind.
I hope that the word will go out tonight to those authorities that the Conservative Party has at last seen the error of its ways. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Thanet West who faced up to the problems. He said that he preferred to see people get a pension which would enable them to afford to go on the buses and have a living income as well. I also would like to see that happy day arrive. Of course we are starting to relate the pension to the cost of living, but it will be a long job. Increasingly in rural districts there are no bus services at all. Therefore, concessionary schemes make no difference to pensioners there, because there are no buses to use.
Where there are bus services we can encourage the Government and local authorities that have been backward in this respect to do something about it. It is in no mean spirit that we do this tonight. I have a particularly reactionary Tory-controlled authority in my area which is doing things that it will regret. Let the message go out to that area from the Opposition Benches tonight—and it would carry more weight than any words that I can say—that they have repented of their ways and that they are encouraging the implementation of these schemes as soon as possible.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It is a privilege and a pleasure to have the opportunity to support the new clause that was moved so eloquently and persuasively by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr).
I speak against the background of a strong constituency interest, which, over the past two years, has been evidenced by the seemly and salutary apparatus of our democratic institutions, by representations, both written and oral, by a substantial petition with many signatures, and by a deputation headed by no less a person than the Mayor of Broxbourne.
The nub of the matter is the discrepancy of treatment between people who are in similar circumstances and who live physically near each other but who are divided by the artificialities of local government boundaries. These artificial boundaries, together with the statutory framework which leaves the introduction of schemes and the fixing of the level of discretionary fares to the local authorities,

have given rise to marked anomalies and consequent resentment.
11.30 p.m.
As the House knows, the scheme of the Transport Act 1968 in respect of travel concessions is that Section 138 (1) empowers local authorities to enter into arrangements for concessionary travel for the people specified in subsection (5). In essence they are men over 65 and women over 60—there is a certain amount of sex discrimination implicit there—and the blind and disabled. It is merely an enabling provision in that it gives a discretion to local authorities to enter into these arrangements. It does not compel them nor does it prescribe the range of the journeys to be covered nor the degree of fare concessions.
A reasonable degree of discretion in local authorities is a good thing. Of course, a balance has to be struck between the interests of pensioners in having the best scheme available and the interests of the general body of ratepayers in keeping public expenditure as low as is possible. There is much to be said in principle in a political democracy for these decisions being made locally. Indeed, so long as there is a statutory discretion we can hardly expect absolute uniformity of treatment.
The fact is that the variations set out here in the Bill are so wide and general as to constitute an anomalous and inequitable situation. Paragraph 107 of the White Paper "Transport Policy", Cmnd. 6836 says:
The schemes in operation vary widely between areas. Of almost £80 million which local authorities in England and Wales currently spend on concessionary fares, 70 per cent. is spent in Greater London and the metropolitan areas where 38 per cent. of pensioners live.
Such a discrepancy not only has no mathematical basis but it equally has no identifiable social or equitable considerations to justify it. This, as it happens, is particularly relevant in the case of the southern part of my constituency which abuts a Greater London area and where highly divergent schemes operate cheek by jowl.
In Hertfordshire the existing arrangements for concessionary bus permits were formulated and agreed by the county working party comprising representatives from the 10 district councils


and the appropriate bus undertakings. The scheme which is, I believe, common to all districts in Hertfordshire, permits travel at half adult rate on journeys starting and finishing in Hertfordshire, up to a maximum adult fare of 50p. Journeys over 50p are charged at 25 per cent. less than the normal adult fare. Such an arrangement is in striking contrast to that operating for the people enjoying the benefit of the London scheme over the border, who have free bus travel, thereby adding to the 70 per cent. cost for the 38 per cent. pensioners referred to in the White Paper.
It is naturally difficult for the residents of Broxbourne to understand the niceties and nuances of these arrangements. All that they see—and naturally it hurts—is that they have to pay at least half price, even for journeys in Hertfordshire, and have no concessionary fares to assist them in travelling to London while, next door, their enviable and fortunate neighbours in Enfield travel free.
The anomaly is aggravated because of the out-county development which has taken place in Hertfordshire. For example, there is a Greater London council estate at Rosedale in the borough of Broxbourne. These Hertfordshire residents have only recently come from London. If they want to travel to London to revisit their friends in the neighbouring Greater London area they have to pay a substantial fare. The converse does not apply to Londoners visiting Hertfordshire.
I referred to the many representations that I have received. In February 1977 I advised a deputation from the borough of Broxbourne to contact the other district councils in Hertfordshire, and it did so. The result of the consultations is embodied in a letter from the Hertfordshire District Councils' Association to me dated 2nd May. In the letter it is stated:
This branch has, on a number of occasions, considered this thorny question of concessionary bus fares with particular reference to the anomalies which exist in the county as between different bus operators and, as far as those councils whose districts abut on the GLC boundary are concerned, the particular problem of the GLC policy of free bus travel for aged pensioners. All approaches by this and other branches to the bus operators in an effort to normalise the situation have proved abortive, so it was with keen interest that we considered your suggested possibility

of … Parliament amending the Transport Act 1968 so as to make free bus travel for pensioners and the disabled a national responsibility.
You will be interested to learn that this was one of the few occasions when no dissenting voice was raised and the Association were unanimous in their support of the proposal.
Can you therefore take up cudgels on our behalf and lend your support to our cause?
I cannot do all that the Association asks within the framework of the Bill. That would, I understand, be outwith the Money Resolution and could not be encompassed by amendment to the Bill. It would not be in order to suggest that course. However, I can and do support the new clause of my hon. Friends and that of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Their content is modest enough, as hon. Members have been free to acknowledge. I can and do urge the Government to keep it within their thinking and to take action to implement their undertaking in paragraph 109 of the White Paper, and to guide local authorities to what they there call
the more equitable and sensible arrangements
referred to in the paragraph. I ask them to ensure that the resources to be made available, referred to by the Under-Secretary of State and reported in column 222 of Hansard of 1st March 1978 are directed to that end.
I am sure that the House and all the many persons affected will welcome action and guidance within the possibilities of the national economy that will improve the position for areas such as Hertfordshire and remove, or at any rate reduce, the patent anomalies and indefensible incongruities of our present position.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) speaks of the anomalies between areas where the level of provision is different. The anomaly is far harder between areas where there is some provision and areas where there is none at all. There are few people more distressed than pensioners who go into local post offices, as in my constituency, to find forms to complete to enable them to obtain bus tokens, who complete them and return them to the appropriate office only to find, because they live on the wrong side of the boundary and the post office concerned happens to serve two areas, that they are eligible


for no concession. I am glad to say that that situation has been changing. There has been a change of heart by two of the district councils in my constituency.
I agree with a number of hon. Members—this is something that I have always felt—that a national scheme is the only reasonable way to handle the problem. I felt so from the early days of developing concessionary bus fares. It is not possible for rural local authorities to mount the sort of scheme that is possible in densely populated urban areas.
The needs of those in the rural areas tend to be greater because so often it is much further to the shops. In villages where there is no chemist's shop the villagers may have to travel 15 miles or 20 miles to obtain their prescriptions. Their needs are greater and the distances are far greater. In an area such as mine we are talking about subsidising not a 20p fare but a £2 fare. That is often what it costs to go to the nearest chemist and back again. The authorities concerned have less rate resources to pay for these facilities and a higher proportion of old-age pensioners than most other areas, so they undoubtedly start with a very much more difficult task.
Only a national scheme which uses evenly the resources available for this purpose could possibly enable any level of provision which is roughly equal.
I have said quite openly, and I stand by the view, that in the light of what is feasible in the rural areas, some of the urban schemes are undoubtely overgenerous. If it is not possible for someone in a rural area to travel to his nearest shopping centre at all, we are misusing resources if we enable provision for very extensive leisure travel in other areas. If we cannot find some measure of comparability in what we can make available to pensioners throughout the country, we simply should not be spreading resources as unevenly as we are.
Unless we undertake a national scheme—and I continue to press for this—we risk continuing a situation in which many authorities do not have schemes at all or have very inadequate schemes. Without a national scheme we are bound to have to be content with a great deal of unevenness. There is no way in which

the rural areas can equal some of the best city schemes.
But even the disadvantages that I have described are no excuse for having no concessionary fares schemes at all. It has been a long, hard struggle in many areas to get anything done. It certainly has been in my constituency. The Alnwick District Council, since the relaxation of the Government restriction, has introduced a scheme which, although it is limited, I welcome. The Berwick District Council, only last week, at long last, decided that it was prepared to introduce a limited scheme. We are talking now about only a few pounds worth of tokens.
Again, I recognise the limitations, and I welcome the step that they have taken. But I lament the amount of time that they have left it before reaching this stage. I must report that when they first considered this matter they managed to devise a scheme which would have necessitated a 50 per cent. increase in the total borough rates and so horrified themselves that they went away for weeks longer to try to think of something cheaper. But they have now come up with a scheme which is a reasonable start.
But I have found throughout many of these discussions, and it is apparent in many other areas—there is no getting away from this fact—that the principal opponents of schemes of this kind have been Conservative councillors, Conservative-dominated councils and Conservative-controlled councils. There is no point in hiding the fact.
I respect the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), who made the point quite clear that he was engaged in a hard battle to change the attitudes of his party. I hope that he is invited to speak on many platforms at Conservative local government conferences so that he can get his point across with the fairness and sincerity with which he put it across tonight.
The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) never told us whether the Harborough District Council, which is Conservative-controlled, will be introducing a concessionary fares scheme or would be more likely to do so as a result of the new clause. If it takes the new clause to make it introduce a concessionary fares scheme, what on earth are we doing asking a Labour Government to put some


kind of pressure on Conservative-controlled district councils to introduce such schemes?

Mr. Farr: I rather assumed, wrongly as it happens, that the hon. Member had read the proceedings on 3rd March. They were not very long. They lasted for only an hour. I did not repeat to the House the speech that I made then, but I explained exactly then—I have with me a copy of Hansard for that date if the hon. Member wants to read it—the position of the Harborough District Council.

Mr. Beith: Is it going to introduce a scheme now? The hon. Member could have given us the one simple fact. Will the Harborough District Council introduce a concessionary fares scheme? Is it more likely that it will introduce such a scheme if the Labour Government are breathing down its neck? If it takes that, I am prepared to go along with it.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Member requests further information which he can obtain from Hansard for 3rd March. I always thought that he was up to date on these matters. In that debate I made it quite clear that the Harborough District Council has introduced a concessionary fares scheme.

Mr. Beith: I am delighted to hear it. But there is an awful lot more on the list which have still to do so. It will take a long time for the hon. Member's persuasive powers to get round all his colleagues.
The reason I make this point is that it simply is not reasonable for Conservative Members to pose as the saviours of the blind, the disabled and the old-age pensioners unless they have first persuaded their own district councillors to take the necessary action. Frankly, it has not taken a new clause of the kind that is now before us to persuade the district councils in my constituency, on which most of the councillors are Conservatives, to do this. It has taken a lot of arguments and battling, in which a lot of people have tried to persuade them. I do not think that a new clause of this kind will make very much difference.
11.45 p.m.
In any case, we have already had a major report on the progress—and lack of progress—on concessionary fare

schemes in different areas. It is a useful document, and much of it has been quoted by hon. Members tonight.
The only way in which we shall have such schemes in most of the areas is by hard persuasion. If Conservative Members who are now trying to persuade the Government assume that task good luck to them. I would support them. But they should be as honest as the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West. I do not believe that a Labour Government breathing down their local Conservative councillors' necks will make the difference.
I wish that we were not going about this in this way. I recognise that for any rural district councils the limitations are great, the opportunities are few and that they cannot achieve the same level of provision. But let us be honest about who has been providing such schemes and who has not.

Mr. Adley: As those hon. Members who attended the debate on 3rd March will know and as the Minister kindly has said, this matter has almost obsessed me for a long time, not only because some authorities have schemes and some do not—although I should be happy to deal with that—but because of the whole philosophy behind the assumption that it is the responsibility of local government to fund the travel arrangements of those who are old or sick.
We must discuss that matter in this debate because the future of a national scheme will depend on accepting a simple proposition—that the 55 million people in the United Kingdom will, if they live long enough, become old age pensioners, and they will all be entitled to an old-age pension. I want the Government to accept that when people become old they should be entitled to concessionary fares.
The hon. Members for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) can see tonight's argument only in party political terms. But this argument should be examined in a totally different way on the basis of the responsibility of the transport operators.
Bournemouth has never had a Labour council. But Bournemouth pensioners have as good a concessionary fare scheme as the pensioners of Nottingham and Sheffield and any other place. When the hon. Member for Bassetlaw answered my


intervention he implied that a local authority which ran its own transport undertaking was no different from a local authority which did not. With politeness I say to him that he does not seem to have studied the finances and politics—not party politics—of concessionary fare schemes as carefully as he might have done.

Mr. Ashton: We asked whether the fare scheme in Bournemouth was free, as it is Sheffield and Nottingham. If it is not, it is not as good. Many areas, including the fringe areas of Sheffield, have independent companies running the buses but such fares are still free.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member has made his speech. I intend to make mine. I am trying to be constructive and to put forward proposals.
I want to examine the role of a transport operator. There is an organisation called the National Bus Company which, together with the municipal authorities which run their own bus services in England and Wales, accounts for about 80 per cent. of the stage carriage services. In the National Bus Company we have the basis of a national concessionary fare scheme.
There are two other nationalised transport undertakings which run fares schemes of various sorts throughout their systems. They are British Rail and British Airways. British Rail has introduced a concessionary fares scheme that is more than self-financing. It is available to any pensioner. For £7 a pensioner can buy reduced rate travel covering the entire length of the rail system from Penzance to Thurso.
Like most other major air lines, British Airways has a scheme for its staff. It is in no way like the rail scheme for pensioners. It provides for reduced fares and is operated on the same principle as the British Rail scheme, a principle that I am advocating should be adopted by the National Bus Company.
That principle is that if an organisation is obliged to operate a transport service and it has empty seats, it is a matter of marketing and not of politics to find a method of putting bottoms on those seats. I regret that until recently the NBC seemed consistently to have expressed the view that not only was it not its responsibility

to introduce any form of reduced rate fares for pensioners throughout its system but that it would be a practical impossibility.
The NBC maintains that it cannot operate a national scheme, but it operates a national scheme of concessionary fares for its staff and ex-staff. I have no objection whatever—I am delighted—that the NBC operates such a scheme for staff and ex-staff. But it cannot have the argument both ways. If it can run a scheme for ex-bus conductors in Derbyshire, surely it can offer a national scheme for pensioners throughout the system.
After prodding by a number of people, the NBC has begun half-heartedly to introduce some form of concessionary fares in areas where there is none. It is worth considering the cost of these schemes. The British Rail scheme, covering the network from Penzance to Thurso, costs £7 per annum. The NBC recently introduced an experimental scheme in Salisbury which gives half fares on the buses in and around the Salisbury area. That costs £21·60 per annum. That does not seem in any way comparable with British Rail's scheme.

Mr. Beith: Like the hon. Member I am interested in the kind of schemes that the NBC has tried. The only scheme that I know has been tried that is comparable to the British Rail scheme was tried on the Isle of Wight. The cost was around £4 or £5 a year. But that had to be underwritten by the county council to the tune of about £4,000. Does he think that the NBC is not pursuing this matter hard or enough, or is a scheme not feasible on that basis?

Mr. Adley: Geographically the Isle of Wight is the nearest place to my constituency. I am very familiar with the NBC scheme that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Frankly, I do not believe that the NBC has marketed, publicised or operated the scheme sufficiently well. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) quoted a letter from someone in the Isle of Wight who claimed that there was no such scheme. There is such a scheme, however. That is a classic case of where someone on the island does not even know that the scheme exists.
The hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me directly to my next point—the role of the county councils. It is a very


cosy arrangement for the National Bus Company to expect county councils and district councils to pay from the rates for a scheme for money to be paid to the company, not to provide extra services or more frequent services, or to extend its services, but merely to pay it a subsidy from the rates. It is a fact of life that in some small local authority areas the costs of providing a scheme are exorbitant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned the debate of 3rd March. Many hon. Members have to be here tonight, and as they have nothing better to do they have come into the Chamber. It is a pity some of them were not here on 3rd March. I do not like quoting my own speeches, but I want to read what I said about the position in Christchurch and Bournemouth, two completely separate local authority areas:
If Christchurch, for example, introduced a scheme with the same travel opportunities as are available in Bournemouth, the town clerk estimates that the cost would be £100,000 on the district rates. A small district council like this would be faced with a huge burden—in fact, it is estimated at 12 per cent. of the total district rates. Hon. Members should understand why local authorities like Christchurch cannot afford to introduce a comprehensive scheme, much as I regret it."—[Official Report, 3rd March 1978; Vol. 945; c. 923.]
I finish on the point with which I started. I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and a number of other speakers that we must recognise that, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said, there can be few more frustrating or unhappy experiences for a pensioner than to stand on the corner and see an empty bus go by, not being able to afford to get on it.
The job of the House is to see that people are treated in the same way and given equality of opportunity. I want equality of opportunity for pensioners to travel on the buses, and I look to the National Bus Company as the company which should, in return for its near monopoly, be required to introduce a scheme.
I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the NBC does not have a particularly good marketing track record. When I represented a Bristol constituency, from which I was redistributed some years ago, I was there when the M32 opened. I suggested to

the Bristol Bus Company, which is part of NBC, that it should introduce a new bus service from Downend in my constituency into the centre of the city of Bristol, using the motorway. I was told "Nobody would use it". It took me a year to persuade the NBC to try an experiment. I had a meeting with the NBC this morning, and at lunchtime I met a former general manager of the Bristol Bus Company. He told me "I think you would like to know that that bus service is still operating and has been a great success".
It should not be necessary for Members of Parliament to plead with the NBC to introduce a new bus service because the Member can see the potential and the NBC cannot. Rather than spending time worrying about ways of pushing district councils or county councils into paying more or less rates to one scheme or another, we should take the bull by the horns and recognise that with the NBC and the municipal authorities we have an inbuilt machinery to introduce without delay a national scheme for pensioners.

12 midnight

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I support New Clause No. 10 put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and others of my hon. Friends, and I support also those Tory Members here tonight who are asking for increased public expenditure in the full knowledge that that is the only way they will get a concessionary fare scheme, faced as they are by Tory-controlled county councils which do not in present circumstances give the kind of concessions which are available under other authorities.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to go further than the proposals outlined in either of the new clauses. I understand that my hon. Friends who prepared their new clause had a problem in that they wanted to go further but were precluded from so doing by the Money Resolution. If we are to tackle the problems which have been discussed tonight and which I encounter in my constituency, we must have a national uniform concessionary travel scheme.
I shall illustrate the case by examples from my constituency. In the town of Ormskirk itself, pensioners and the disabled receive £20 worth of tokens per


year as a travel concession. For those who live in the remoter parts of the constituency, that means that they can make only 12 free journeys a year using their tokens. In effect, this discriminates against those who most need help, those living in the remoter areas, since those who live within the environs of the town itself can make considerably more journeys a year on their £20 concession.
But there is an even more marked discrimination between those who live in the town of Ormskirk and those who reside in the area covered by the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive. Five miles down the road from the homes of those who have tokens to the value of £20 a year, which, as I say, in some cases enables them to make only 12 free journeys a year, I have other constituents fortunate enough to live under a Labour authority who have totally free travel within the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive area. Thus, someone living in Kirkby can go as far as Chester, across Merseyside, across Liverpool and across the Wirral, totally free, and making as many journeys as he wants to make in any given period. But if he were to go north and travel five miles to Ormskirk, he would come to the Lancashire county boundary where the free travel concession ends and would have to pay.
There are such anomalies and injustices within areas and between adjoining areas—not just between Cheshire and Lancashire, between Merseyside and Lancashire and so on, but even within quite small areas. Naturally, therefore, there is a great feeling of resentment and frustration among those of my constituents living in Ormskirk who may be able to make only 12 free journeys a year when they see others of my constituents in Kirkby who have unlimited free travel.
There is a genuine need here to be tackled, and it can be met properly only if the Government are prepared to accept the responsibility and not pass the buck to the local authorities—certainly not to the Tory authorities which, in the main, are not prepared to implement the attractive concessions which are available elsewhere in the country. The Government themselves should decide that as a basic minimum they will establish a national uniform pattern.
I accept that that may involve an increase in public expenditure. But many of the public utilities which we are now urging to provide free travel concessions to pensioners and the disabled would otherwise have their vehicles empty. On the 10 o'clock news tonight there was an announcement by British Rail that it will provide free travel anywhere in the country to any pensioners who pay £7 for the travel pass. British Rail went on to say, almost in an apologetic tone, that it will not cost anyone anything because the trains would be running anyway.
That is precisely the point that my pensioner and disabled constituents in Ormskirk make to me when they cannot use the buses because of the limited amount made available to them, and the same kind of point is made by my other constituents in Kirkby who have unlimited free travel in the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive area but cannot travel free just a few miles to other parts of my area.
I urge upon the Secretary of State the need not only to take on board the sentiments behind these two new clauses but to announce an early date that there will be a national uniform scheme of free travel for pensioners and the disabled introduced, funded and backed by the Government themselves.

Mr. Tony Durant: I intervene to support the new clause.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) came late to the debate. Therefore, I do not think that I should take up the points that he made. However, the theme that he was pushing, with which I agree, was that we must move towards a national scheme. That atmosphere seems to pervade both sides of the House. I think that will be the only way to deal with this matter.
As the deputy leader of a council, I was involved in introducing a concessionary fares scheme. That was and always had been a Conservative-controlled local authority. There were only six Labour Members. They were anxious about the expenditure. But we forced the scheme through because we were well in control. That was nearly eight years ago. Let us get it clear that not all the baddies are Conservatives and that all the goodies are Labour Members. Some of us believe in this idea just as much as do Labour Members.
Having said that we introduced the scheme, I should point out that the urban district council had difficulties with the rural bus services of London Transport which was run by the then London County Council, now the Greater London Council, which was controlled by the Labour Party. The LCC was not too keen on the scheme. We had quite an involved battle to get the scheme introduced. The Aldershot and District Bus Company was quite happy to co-operate, but the London Country Bus Service was not prepared to co-operate. Therefore, we had to introduce a voucher scheme. I believe that problem has now been ironed out.
I now represent part of Reading, which has a remarkably good public bus service. Indeed, it was one of the first authorities to introduce bus lanes. We have a dynamic transport manager. We also have a free bus concession service for old-age pensioners. I am not making a special plea. Reading already has this service. I make the point that we must introduce a national scheme.
I wish to bring in the question of the National Bus Company. The Alder Valley bus service, which is part of the National Bus Company, provides a ghastly service. We have had a tremendous row on our local radio station because there are so many cancellations on this National Bus service. In fact, it could not get any information for the morning service to inform people which buses were cancelled. We should look at that element of the National Bus Company because it is in a bad state. Indeed, it is admitted by the NBC to be one of its worst elements.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk referred to British Rail. I think that he should listen to what I have to say. I had to stomach what he said, so perhaps he will stomach what I have to say. He said that British Rail had announced a £7 voucher scheme to enable old-age pensioners to travel to any part of the country at discount fares.
The National Bus Company, writing to me on 3rd April, states that it has introduced what it calls "National Wander-bus":
At a cost of £2 ·40 for a full day, the ticket does afford good value for money especially if journeys are well planned in advance.

Apparently one can travel 200 miles. This timid attempt, which should be looked at and streamlined, is a beginning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and I have been pressing such a scheme at various meetings that we have had with the NBC, so perhaps there has been some blinding light.

Mr. Adley: As my hon. Friend rightly said, he and I have been pressing the NBC to do this, amongst other things, for a long time. It has taken it three years to draw together the component parts of its organisation to produce this "National Wanderbus" scheme. Is not that some indication why some of us feel that the NBC could do with a little more persuasion by the Government as regards its responsibility in this matter?

Mr. Durant: I am grateful for that intervention. It is at least a start that they are recognising that they can do something to use their bus services to a greater extent. Labour Members who are making political capital out of Tory councils should examine their own transport policy as set out in Command 6836 issued in June 1977, which contains the following passage:
One reason for the wide differences between areas is the advice which the Government itself felt obliged to give local authorities in England and Wales two years ago that, in current economic circumstances, they should not introduce new schemes or improve existing ones.
That was the advice of a Labour Government to local authorities two years ago. Let us be clear that in the economic situation then prevailing, the Government rightly felt that it was not the time to go for a massive introduction of such provision. I am not criticising them for that, but am pointing out to Labour Back Benchers that their own Government had a part to play in all this.
I am very much in favour of this new clause. I think it is a reasonable attempt to take a further step in the right direction. Most of us have said that what we need is a national scheme. Let us hope that out of this clause will emerge a national scheme.

Mr. Skinner: There has been a good deal of hypocrisy from Tory Members about the introduction of concessionary


fare schemes of whatever kind. The history of the two parties on this subject is clear. Throughout the post-war period any attempt to introduce concessionary fares for pensioners has been prompted by Labour councils assisted by Labour Governments.
I remind the House that it was the Tories who attacked the Birmingham City Council way back in the early 1960s, took the council to court and tried to stop it spending ratepayers' money in order to introduce a concessionary scheme. It was a Labour Government between 1964 and 1970 who introduced discretionary powers that allowed Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle and other areas to introduce these schemes.
The history is quite clear. Nobody can deny that in the last two or three years we have seen the Right-wing shift of the Tory Party on all these matters. When we consider attitudes by the Tories on public expenditure, I am amazed that some of these people have not consulted the Right-wing hatchet men on the Tory Front Bench. I wonder what the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the Right-wing guru, thinks about this matter. Has he been consulted? Has the man who recently wrote the book "Centre Forward" been consulted? I am referring to the junior—or is it the senior?—Tory spokesman on education. I thought that the Tories were saying loud and clear that they want people to be able to use their money in whatever way they want and not to have it taken way from them in rates and taxes.
There has been a lot of hypocrisy in this debate. It should be made clear that if there is to be a national scheme introduced by any Government, the overwhelming chances are—in fact it is a certainty—that it will be introduced by a Labour Government.
I find it somewhat strange that the Tories in the rural seats, appear to be worried, but it must be the case. There has been an obvious swing to Labour in the urban areas where we usually manage to win most of the seats. But when I see the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) coming into a debate such as this, I wonder what is happening in Hertfordshire and whether the Tories there are getting worried and are trying to please

the electorate by reading out a monologue from the Association of District Councils.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member, with his characteristic lack of courtesy, came very late into this debate. He came in during the course of my speech. If he had been here at the beginning, he would have heard me explain exactly what are the arrangements in Hertfordshire. The point I was making is that there are anomalies, and that was the whole point of my speech. I was not saying that there has been no action in Hertfordshire. There has been action of long standing, as the hon. Member would have known if he had been here to listen to my remarks.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Skinner: I almost thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was going to chide his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) because he had not introduced free weekends for pensioners at the expense of Holiday Inns Ltd.
I have to live in the area of a Tory-controlled county council. The Tories who control Derbyshire County Council, not content with refusing to introduce any concessionary scheme, proposed in their manifesto to get rid of the buses, so that no scheme could have been introduced. Their proposal was that the village squires, the vicars and other well-meaning, do-gooding types would pick up people in their cars from rural bus stops and take them to the main roads. Not content with that, the Tories in Derbyshire got rid of the consumer centres and refuse to spend all the money they got from the Department of Education and Science, for which I and others fought in the House and outside. That is the same council which lopped £100,000 off the police estimates left by the Labour group.
I do not want any lessons from Tories. It is pretty clear what they are up to. They are trying to cash in and kid the people and be all things to all men for the election that we are likely to have in October or whenever. It is clear that they are getting worried about what the polls are saying about the result of that election. So there is something pleasing about their attitude: it shows that they are getting scared.
Perhaps it is not possible to do exactly what we want to do immediately but New Clause No. 10 can be accepted as a stepping stone on the way to a free travel scheme for pensioners throughout the country. If it is possible, such a scheme cannot be introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and her friends. It can be done only by the Labour Government who will be elected this year or next to serve for a further period.

Mr. Fry: The contrast between this debate and the last has been marked—perhaps typified by the speech of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). In view of the good temper, understanding and open-mindedness one sees in transport debates, it is a refreshing change to see evidence of the closed mind of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
This has been a useful debate. I congratulate both my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) on their new clauses. It is a pity that there has been an attempt to make the debate party political. Even on the figures which have been produced by Labour Members, a total of 19 Conservative-controlled councils have no concessionary schemes. That is only a small percentage of all Conservative-controlled councils. In the light of the complexity of this matter, which is rather greater than some hon. Members have appreciated, that is nothing to be particularly ashamed of.
To those who have tried to make this a party political issue I would quote some sound common sense. The sound common sense comes from the Department of Transport's own circular which it issued on 13th January this year. Labour Members may be surprised at what their own Government had to say.
The Secretaries of State"—
there is environment as well as transport—
do not consider that a mandatory national concessionary fares scheme would be appropriate".
That is what the Government have said.
Within the present public expenditure limits, a national scheme could only be achieved by reducing considerably the benefits that people get from the more generous schemes".

Presumably some Labour Members want to see some people have less generous concessionary fare systems than they get at present. The circular makes the further point that it "would reduce local choice". It goes on to say:
it must be for local authorities to make provision appropriate to local needs".
I recall this afternoon, during the debate on car parks, the Secretary of State twitting us because we, apparently, were not in favour of giving a degree of local choice to local authorities. At least the Secretary of State is being consistent, and I hope that he will convince more of his hon. Friends on that score.
There is a second quotation to which Labour Members should listen:
The Secretaries of State recognise that there may be areas (for example where bus services are scanty) where the provision of bus travel concessions may not be the roost effective way of helping the travel needs of elderly and handicapped people.
Those two quotations are good sense. The Minister knows perfectly well that when I think the Government are talking good sense I usually say so. The fact that the Government have come out with those statements shows that they have delved a little deeper into what is quite a complicated issue. Of course there is dissatisfaction with the variety of schemes. One of the troubles is that no individual scheme is ever totally satisfactory. If it is a token scheme, it means that people have to make many regular journeys, perhaps to an elderly relative in hospital, and very soon use up the tokens. If it is a bus pass scheme, for which many people pay a certain amount of money, one of the disadvantages is that there is no monitoring of the schemes at all.
Often ratepayers' money may be quite unnecessarily transferred to the local bus company without any check as to whether it has been justified. Other areas have no scheme at all. I accept that that is particularly hard on those pensioners and the handicapped who live in those areas. But as has been pointed out very forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), it is very costly indeed to operate a scheme in many areas. If one asks most of the ratepayers in those areas, even some who might favour concessionary fares, the last thing they want is an increase in their rate burden.
I believe that to their credit the Government have recognised that this is a very complex matter. Whatever else the argument about concessionary fares, it has very little to do with transport economics. When one talks to any bus operator that is the first point that he makes. It has a lot to do with the realm of the Department of Health and Social Security. I take the point that it may well be therapeutic for the old-age pensioners of Merseyside, for example, to be able to ride round at off-peak times rather than to be at home. But when one realises that over 80 per cent. of the people travelling on the Merseyside passenger transport system are old-age pensioners going free, whatever else it is, it has nothing whatever to do with the running of the public transport system. It may have to do with social security.
Therefore, one of the questions to which the House should address itself is whether the answer is to continue to regard this matter as one of transport finance or whether we should consider transferring it to another part of the balance sheet.
Having accepted the financial limitations that there are, I should like to put forward the proposition that not all parts of the country are being reactionary. I can name one county, hardly Socialist controlled—the county of Surrey—which is trying to persuade and organise the district councils within its boundaries to co-operate together to have a coherent concessionary fare scheme. Much could be done on this basis of voluntary co-operation co-ordinated by the counties to achieve many of the objectives of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I suggest that that is a useful way of proceeding because, if we go ahead with a national scheme, we shall automatically take away local decision-making. We shall also move into that very delicate area of the powers of various local authorities. The House will recall that the 1972 Local Government Act gave to the district councils the responsibility of introducing their own concessionary fare schemes. The impression given by the ADC is that any attempt suddenly to take it away would be resisted very strongly, because it would take away local initiative and responsibility.
One can also understand the problem of county councils. It is all very well

with a district public undertaking, where the marginal cost of a seat on a bus in a city in the middle of a county is very little, to provide a high level of public transport at a concessionary rate. But, realising that there are many residents in such a county where there are no bus services at all, how far is it justified to tax those who get no benefit in order to over-provide?
I could not help thinking as the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) was speaking that, typical of his party, he wanted it both ways. He wanted a national scheme, but at the same time he accepted that it was very difficult to produce a scheme which would be fair to people in both urban and rural areas. I suggest that those two factors will be very difficult to reconcile and that it would be far better to proceed by allowing local authorities to do the organising, leaving the financial side of it to the Government. It is on that basis that I believe that we should consider the overall national funding for some kind of concessionary fare scheme.

Mr. Beith: Despite all the difficulties, if the hon. Member gave me a sheet of paper and all the present resources devoted to bus subsidies, I am sure that I could devise a national scheme which was a great deal fairer than the present situation.

Mr. Fry: I am sure that the National Bus Company will be happy to employ the hon. Member after the General Election.
There is obviously widespread concern. The danger is that we could well increase the inequality between various sections of the community—those who would have, and those who would not. Any Government have to look closely at how to spend the money available to them, because 20 per cent. of our elderly people do not use buses and are unlikely to do so in the future. If we are to concentrate more money on only one part of the pensioner population, in equity we have to consider the case of the remainder.
Both these new clauses are worthy of consideration, and this is a matter to which the House will return in the future. But, as I said earlier, I find myself very much struck with the good sense of the Government's present position. If that is


the position which the Under-Secretary of State intends to maintain, he will receive no criticisms from the Opposition.
It is obvious that there must be some movement to remove the many complaints and inequalities. I hope that the message will go out from this House to county councils and district councils alike that they should try to see whether within their areas they cannot get co-ordination and the removal of some of the inequalities.

Mr. Penhaligon: I hope that the Government will accept one of these new clauses. In my view, New Clause No. 10 is the better, but the acceptance of either could result in a useful additional power in areas where schemes exist already.
I listened to the general pressure for a national scheme. But it is inappropriate, because a scheme exists. If a county council or district council has no scheme and decides to introduce one, all that it has to do is put up its hand and it has one.
If parish councils run schemes, do they get help through the rate support grant system? In some very rural areas, the only unfair aspect of concessionary fare scheme is that there are a few areas that have no buses and it is unlikely that they will ever have buses again. It could be argued in some areas that parish councils could run schemes better than another authority. Would they get the same sort of help that district and county councils receive via the rate support grant system?

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Horam: I hope that the House will forgive me if I reply very briefly because many of the points have been covered and I do not want to go over the ground that we went over extensively on 3rd March.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is that parish councils do not get rate support grant help if they wish to introduce a scheme of their own.
I am glad that there is the beginning of all-party agreement on the need for concessionary fare schemes, but I must point out to the Opposition that the Labour Party has made the running on this for many years, both locally and nationally. The hon. Member for Harborough

(Mr. Farr) fairly pointed out that more than half the money spent on concessionary fares is spent in London. That is because London and other metropolitan areas have pioneered these schemes and that is because on the whole they have been Labour controlled. At the other extreme, the 56 district councils with no scheme include 19 that are nominally Conservative and the rest are controlled by independents. None is a Labour-controlled authority.
The Government have provided extra finance. In the current financial year, we are providing an extra £4 million for schemes and by the end of the decade we shall be providing an extra £30 million. We also sent a circular in January this year advocating for district councils a half-fare off-peak system. We want them all to level up to at least half-fare off-peak systems for the elderly.
In many cases, the blind and disabled have different needs. A blind person may be working and want to travel during peak hours as well as off-peak. We want councils to look closely at these categories to try to work out individual schemes that suit the needs of the disabled and the blind as well as looking into the needs of the elderly.
There has already been a considerable response to the circular. We know that 10 counties are considering introducing county-wide schemes. Of the 56 districts with no schemes, 14 have plans and another 16 are involved in preliminary discussions on their plans. Of the 200 or so districts with below average schemes, 26 are proposing to impove them and another 27 are looking at the possibility of doing so. We have achieved that progress since January.
I note what my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), said about the need for a national scheme. I hope that they will have noticed the progress that we have made following the circular sent out in January. We are making rapid progress as a result of pressure from the Government.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough, whose interest in this matter is long standing, on tabling the new clause, because it has sparked off the debate, but the point that he makes in his new clause is subsumed in New Clause


No. 10. That new clause means that the recording of schemes will not be a once-and-for-all exercise. It will have to be done every year. We need to keep the pressure on all the time so that schemes are improved and so that the public knows what is happening and it is brought to the attention of the public every year. In that respect the pressure exerted by my hon. Friend's new clause will be greater than that exerted by the hon. Member's new clause. For that reason my hon. Friend's new clause is preferred.
The other point was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who said that the biggest problems with these schemes were the discrepancies that exist between various areas. If these schemes are co-ordinated and looked at by the counties, at least those discrepancies can be ironed out within a county.
I hope that the House will agree to accept New Cause No. 10, and that the hon. Member for Harborough will withdraw hs new clause.

Mr. Farr: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I recognise that the other new clause is an extension and improvement of my own, and I shall gladly withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause No. 8

CENTRAL AND AREA PASSENGER COUNCILS

"The the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain, and the Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee established by section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 shall henceforth be known as the 'Central Passenger Council' and 'area passenger councils' respectively".

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): We may also consider the following new clause:

New Clause No. 9

CONSIDERATION OF FARES &C. BY CENTRAL TRANSPORT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

"In section 56(5) of the Transport Act 1962 omit the words 'any committee' and insert the words 'any area committee'.".

Mr. John Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We should like a vote on New Clause No. 10.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is agreeable, but the hon. Member will have to move it formally at the appropriate time.

Mr. Moate: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
These two new clauses have certain outstanding merits. They are very brief, simple, comprehensible and non-controversial. I hope that the Minister will agree to accept them both.
I attach great importance to New Clause No. 9. Essentially it seeks to amend the Transport Act 1962 in a very minor way. It would have the clear effect of allowing the National Transport Users' Consultative Committee to consider fare increases in the future. This is a simple proposition which will have wide-spread support in principle and practice on all sides of the House.
The essentially technical point is that by deleting the words "any committee" and inserting the words "any area committee" we are simply saying that in future area committees should not have power to consider fares and charges, but that the Central Transport Consultative Committee would have the right to consider fares and charges imposed by British Rail.
It is now widely accepted that it is right for the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, or some other consumer body, to look at rail fare increases. By doing that it in no way inhibits British Rail or interferes with its management. That principle was conceded very fairly and clearly by the Under-Secretary in Committee. He said:
I do not think that one would say that this was an unnecessary interference in the working of British Railways or that it would necessarily cast doubt on the principle that the Board should run the railways and the Government should set the broad parameters within which they are run.
Earlier in the same debate the Under-Secretary generously conceded the principle of what I am now arguing and said in response to an amendment that I tabled:
Again, I should like to be sympathetic, except for a minor, technical quibble."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4th April 1978; c. 835–7.]


The implication was that, had I drafted the amendment more accurately on that occasion, the hon. Gentleman would have accepted it. Now I am making another effort and have tabled the amendment in a more precise form. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to accept my proposition, particularly as embodied in New Clause No. 9.
I am strengthened in my belief that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my proposal because, effectively, what I am doing is carrying out the intentions of the Government as expressed in their White Paper on the nationalised industries issued in March 1978, Cmnd. 7131. On page 15, paragraph 35, the Secretary of State says:
The Government intends in due course to promote legislation to extend the powers of the existing Central Transport Consultative Committee, at present prescribed by Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962. It will be renamed the National Transport Consumers' Council (N.T.C.C.), and enabled to consider the general tariff structure of the British Railways Board's railway passenger and parcels services;
There we have a clear statement of intent by the Government to allow the national consultative committee to consider rail fares.
I do not think that there is any divide between the two sides about the common sense advantage of having some outside body to consider fare increases. It would be a good thing, because it would enable there to be a broader acceptance of increases by consumers. Fare increases place a heavy burden upon commuters. There are bound to be further increases in the pipeline. They are always controversial and always need a degree of examination and explanation. It would help the public relations aspect if the public were aware that the increases had been considered by some consumer body. I believe, too, following our earlier debate, that enabling the facts and figures behind applications to be exposed would help to produce wiser decisions. We would be better off if a consumer body were to consider these increases.
The Government say that they intend to do "in due course" what I am proposing should be done this evening. With the political uncertainties at present, I wonder when the Government intend to introduce legislation of their own. I suspect that it will not be in this Session, and probably not in the next Session.

Would it not be helpful to have this power entrenched now, so that when we have the next round of fare increases they can go to the Central Transport Consultative Committee?
Last year the matter was covered because the Price Commission considered the fare increases. I believe that that was a valuable exercise. We were rather surprised and encouraged by some of the comments made by the Price Commission on the last application for fare increases. Let us repeat that exercise by allowing the Central Transport Consultative Committee to consider fare increases. On the basis that there is no gulf between us, I hope that the Secretary of State will accept New Clause No. 9.
May I comment briefly on New Clause No. 8? In that I suggest that we change the name of the Central Consultative Committee for Great Britain to the Central Passenger Council and that the local organisations should be named area passenger councils. Whoever thought up the name "Transport Users' Consultative Committee" did not do us a very great service. It is a dreadful name. Most people do not know what the initials TUCC mean. I would have thought that "Passenger Council" was a simple and clear title which would have meaning. I am suggesting a central council and area passenger councils. In their White Paper the Government suggest that there should be a renaming and I carry on this rapport with the White Paper—that paragraph at least. The Government suggest that the name should be changed to the National Transport Consumers' Council. It is still a bit of a mouthful. I suggest that the term "Central Passenger Council" is better than "National Transport Consumers' Council".
I expect that the Secretary of State will say "But it will consider more than passengers. It will consider the parcel service as well". Is that meaningful? The parcel service is highly competitive. British Rail is constrained by the need to break even on its freight services generally. Is it necessary to have the passenger councils or the central transport consultative committees designated in such a way that they have to take account of freight and/or parcels? The important role that they have to perform is that of dealing with railway passengers. The term "Central Passenger Council" would


create a greater awareness in the minds of the travelling public that there is a body that takes an independent and objective view of rail fares.
12.45 a.m.
It would be a helpful move if tonight we were able to create passenger councils. It would be a move encouraging rail passengers throughout the country. It would be even more encouraging if the councils could consider the fare increases that might be proposed by 1979. It is to be hoped that no increases will be proposed in 1978. With any fare increases heavy burdens are placed on commuters. If accepted, the clauses would ease the way to a greater public understanding of the problems facing British Rail and the need for fare increases and the like. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to accept them.

Mr. Younger: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on making two extremely constructive suggestions. My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the logic of what he is proposing. It is a case that ties in with the way in which we have approached transport planning within the Bill, which is that the emphasis both in the form of what is proposed and in the way in which it is presented should be towards the consumer and towards making it clear to all those concerned in operating, planning and using transport that the consumers' needs are the raison d'être of the transport industry.
My hon. Friend's suggestions to rename the committees, and the names that he has produced are helpful, and I look forward to hearing what the Secretary of State has to say about them. There are two sides to that which we are discussing. There is the way in which transport is to be organised in its various forms and there is the way in which it is presented. We should not under-estimate the importance of building up public confidence that their view is to be taken into account and is to matter. We can do so by ensuring that the bodies that represent their views have names that are readily understand-able and memorable and represent the tasks that they should undertake.

Mr. William Rodgers: There are many occasions on Report when we feel that we should have more time to discuss important

propositions that come before us. It may be that it makes nonsense of our procedures that as the clock advances we find ourselves a little impatient to give time to important matters that should receive full consideration. I am sure that that will be said again from the Dispatch Box before dawn breaks over the Thames and the birds sing again.
The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has raised important issues and I do not differ from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) in what he said about them. It was the theme of hon. Member on both sides in Committee that the consumer must have a larger say than hitherto in the formulation of transport policy in so far as the transport system bears down upon him.
When I look back I can see many anomalies in the TUC system. I am surprised that it has persisted in its present form for such a long time. For all those reasons I wish that we could have a considerable debate on these matters to ascertain whether the House could work out a solution that makes the best sense.
As the hon. Member for Faversham said, he has looked at the White Paper on nationalised industries and he is aware of the proposals that we intend to bring forward. I have to tell him that I think that his new clauses, with respect, although well intended, do not fulfil the broad purpose which I think he has in mind.
The hon. Member said quite fairly in relation to New Clause No. 8, to which he attached less importance, that the very change of title which he proposes, which is on the face of it a very logical and sensible one, would eliminate the consideration of parcels. My view is that we should be very cautious indeed in taking away from any council of consumers a power that it possesses today. I know that there is some ambivalence on the Opposition Benches between the role of the market and the role of public policy when it is not the role of the market. But here I should have thought that to maintain a public interest in parcels is desirable. As the hon. Member himself conceded, New Clause No. 8 would take something away which has been found to be valuable even in a limited and restricted way. Although the new title is attractive and maybe it is a


title to which we shall come in due course, it is by implication a restrictive one. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member will feel that New Clause No. 8 cannot be proceeded with this evening.
Looking at New Clause No. 9, I see something much nearer to the White Paper on nationalised industries. I am sure that the hon. Member is very anxious to legislate on those elements in it which, on both sides of the House, are found to be desirable. But even there, New Clause No. 9 is very much more restrictive in its scope than the Government's present intentions as expressed in the White Paper on the nationalised industries. It is designed to allow the CTCC to consider fares and charges, but it would not give the CTCC the strategic role that we envisage for it in the White Paper. The new clause would not, for example, give the CTCC powers to make representations to the Price Commission—something which we ourselves propose. Instead, it would give rather wider powers to myself. I am always grateful to have them but I do not think that I would exercise them better than by the processes recommended by the White Paper.
For this reason, it seems to me that what the hon. Member has in mind is not the purpose which would result from his new clause. In fact, the new clause might result in a good deal more Government day-to-day interference with the management of our transport system. Again, in view of our earlier debates, I am sure that that is not what the hon. Member has in mind.
Therefore, I say very regretfully that I would have to advise the House to reject the new clauses were the hon. Member to press them. However, he has raised an important matter. I hope that he will take the assurance that we hope to go rather further than he proposes when the time comes to legislate in the light of the White Paper. I hope that the hon. Member will regard that as a step in the right direction and will not wish to pursue the matter further now.

Mr. Moate: I confess to being somewhat disappointed with the Secretary of State's response. With regard to the question of fares consideration by the CTCC, I concede the strength of his argument. But nevertheless I should have thought that the immediate prospect

of consideration by the CTCC would be attractive as an interim measure. It could be years before we have other legislation on the statute book, years during which there will be other fare increases. I should have thought that this would be quite a useful interim step.
With regard to the matter of the name of the passenger council or whatever, I should have thought that one could designate it a passenger council, which would be a meaningful title to the world at large, without reducing its power if it wished to scrutinise parcels matters. One would not necessarily be reducing the powers of the council by changing its name. In fact, one could not do so simply by a change of name.
Nevertheless, I appreciate that I shall not make much progress with these new clauses tonight. I am glad at least that there is a general acceptance of the principles of this matter. One can only look forward to early legislation that will allow these matters to be properly considered. I nevertheless register my disappointment that the Government have failed to carry out the intentions which were implicit in the statements by the Under-Secretary in Committee, which were much more helpful, and I should have thought that the Government could find a way at this stage of providing some interim investigation by the consumer bodies of rail fare increases.
I am disappointed. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause No. 10

CONCESSIONARY FARE SCHEMES

'(1) All those county councils who have under this Act to prepare and publish an annual public passenger transport plan shall include in the plan, whenever it is published or republished, the following matters relating to travel concession schemes (meaning schemes for the reduction of waiver of fares or charges on public passenger transport services in favour of special categories of persons).

(2) The matters to be included in the plan are:

(a) an account of what (if any) travel concession schemes are operative in the county or planned for early introduction, being schemes which are wholly or partly financed, or the subject of financial contribution, by


the council themselves or by any of the district councils in the county;
(b) the nature and extent of the concessions available under those schemes;
(c) proposals for introducing new travel concession schemes such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above, or for extending or improving existing schemes; and
(d) the reasons why (if it be the case) in any part of the country either no such schemes are operative or existing schemes are inadequate."—[Mr. John Ellis.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

PASSENGER TRANSPORT POLICIES IN COUNTY AREAS

Mr. Horam: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'including school transport'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5.

Mr. Horam: Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 are drafting amendments which move the operation of school transport to a different place, which we accepted in Committee. They move it to the place which defines public transport passenger services. Therefore all the inclusions and exclusions are in one clause. I hope that the Opposition accept that they further improve its own excellent idea.
Amendment No. 4 meets another Opposition suggestion and excludes excursions or tours within the meaning of the 1968 Act from public transport considerations by the county councils. We accept the Opposition's argument that these could be excluded.
Amendment No. 5 is a drafting amendment. As a result of other changes made in Standing Committee this part of the clause had become rather long. The amendment breaks the clause into two subsections, which will make for greater clarity.

Mr. Fry: I am delighted to know the Government are defeated in Standing Committee they regard it as an excellent idea. The Under-Secretary of State resisted our argument about school transport. It was our one clear-cut victory in Committee. But I am glad that on reflection the Government are moving

gradually and slowly in our direction. We accept the change in the position of these words because we consider that no overall appraisal of public transport can be thorough unless the whole area of school transport is taken into account.
One of the weaknesses of the Bill was that without making a special mention of school transport there was a danger that there would be no co-ordination between the various county council departments which is necessary to provide the transport system desired by the people in non-metropolitan areas. We are grateful that the Government have seen the light of day.
We are also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Amendment No. 4. He will recall that this resulted from a dual suggestion. One dealt with excursions. He resisted our proposals on express services and we are disappointed that he can accept only half of our suggestion. But this is a sensible amendment which will be welcomed not only by coach operators but by the many people who use excursions. People of all political persuasions enjoy coach tours, even if they do not always end in Blackpool.
We told the Government in Committee that the Bill was badly drawn and cumbersome and that the wording should be improved. Now our advice has been taken and we are grateful. We view what the Minister has said with satisfaction and realise that our activities in Committee have made a considerable imprint on the Bill.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May I say how pleased I am that the change has been made? I congratulate the Opposition and the Government on having taken the Opposition's advice.
I remember being a member of the county council in my constituency when we embarked upon purchasing about half a dozen "yellow perils", which were buses with which we started our own school transport service. I made the point then that I hoped that we would use the buses for carrying people in rural areas where the NBC service did not operate. That has never happened. Tonight, therefore, we have witnessed a victory, because the Bill will now force the Isle of Wight council to make better use of those vehicles, which lie idle for far


too many days in the year. They are maintained by the Southern Vectis bus company anyway. To integrate the two makes a great deal of sense. This is a victory for common sense all round.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 19, leave out "section 2' and insert
sections 2 and (Concessionary Fare Schemes).".

No. 3, in page 2, line 23, leave out "not however including" and insert
including school transport but not—
(a)'.

No. 4, in page 2, line 26, at end insert
or
(b) excursions or tours within the meaning of the 1968 Act".

No. 5, in page 2, line 32, leave out from "expedient" to end of line 37 and insert—
(3A) Those who provide public passenger transport services may under subsection (3) enter into arrangements between themselves for the establishment under the Companies Acts of companies controlled (jointly or severally by the parties to the arrangements and for—

(a) the transfer of assets to such companies; and
(b) facilitating the voluntary transfer of employees.".—[Mr. Horam.]

Mr. Horam: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 45, leave out "6A" and insert "5".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take the following amendments:
No. 36, in Clause 5, page 7, line 28, leave out "7" and insert "16".
No. 37, in Clause 5, page 7, line 39, at end insert—
(3) The statutory requirement relating to the insurance of motor vehicles used on public roads shall be amended so as not to permit the exclusion of car sharing for social or other purposes as authorised by this section.".
No. 46, in Schedule 1, page 18, line 7, leave out "7" and insert "16".
No. 49, in Schedule 1, page 18, line 16 after 'owner', insert
or any person making the arrangements for the journey".
No. 50, in Schedule 1, page 18, line 19 leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert
The driver or owner may receive contributions to expenses incurred or to be incurred by him as a result of driving the vehicle or

making it available. A person making arrangements for the journey may receive such contributions to expenses or remuneration in respect of the arrangements".
No. 53, in Schedule 1, page 18, line 41 at end insert
No account shall be taken of advertisements made by a person making arrangements for the journey".
No. 56, in Schedule 1, page 19, line 10 leave out 'and traffic commissioners'.
We may also take Government Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55 and 57.

Mr. Horam: This is a complicated batch of amendments. I shall make two points about the Government amendments. They are essentially in response to criticism by the Opposition in Standing Committee. It was well-grounded criticism that Schedule 1 was extremely complicated. I accept that. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) made the point in Committee that the numbering was a little odd. We have taken his views and comments into account. I can assure the Opposition that there is no change of substance in any of the amendments. They simply re-order the words so as to shorten the schedule and, I hope, to clarify it.
Amendment No. 6 is the most remarkable of all the amendments because it simply changes "6A" to "5". That is a consequential amendment. Amendment No. 34 alters the explanatory parenthesis in Clause 5 consequent upon amendments to the schedule. Amendment No. 35 represents an important change around because it imports into Clause 5 exemptions on advertising in the case of informal car-sharing arrangements and sets them out in a different and clearer form. It adds the cases where advertising can take place to the existing number of cases. As the Opposition know, the extra two places are in workplaces and in clubs. Putting the provisions into Clause 5 enables us to drop various parts of Schedule 1, and we do that in Amendments Nos. 52 and 54. Amendments Nos. 51, 55 and 57 are consequential upon that change.
That leaves Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. The object—the main part of Schedule 1—is to legalise car sharing with payment, first, between neighbours, the sort of informal arrangement that we have been talking about, and, secondly, sharing for social purposes, but to retain existing restrictions which prevent this from being


done commercially, so as to protect public transport. In Committee I gave examples of taxis plying up and down a bus queue and taking separate fare-paying passengers.
This is simply a change in form to put it in a rather clearer way. In the Bill as it stands we had in effect a general ban and then a long list of specific exemptions. Now we have turned it round and we state the ban solely in relation to commercial activities. Thus private and social activities are entirely free.
Amendment No. 47 states this change and Amendment No. 48 drops the exemptions that are now in the Bill. That is a considerable shortening of Schedule 1, and I hope that it is much easier to understand.

Mr. Fry: I wish to address myself particularly to Amendment No. 37, in the names of my hon. Friends and myself, which is in effect the insurance amendment.
In Committee we had a short debate, but one of the more heated debates, because five years after the subject of car sharing was first broached by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) in his Transport Bill it still appears that there has not been satisfactory agreement between the Government and the British insurance industry on how the insurance of car sharing should operate.
The Government appear to be taking the line that many of the car-sharing operations that are to be legalised will fall outside the scope of a normal class 1 motor insurance policy. The Under-Secretary went so far as to accept that many of these journeys would be construed as being for hire or reward. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to take that line, but he must be aware that many people are at present using car-sharing schemes, perhaps illegally. Many will have the erroneous impression when the Bill reaches the statute book that the schemes will be legalised, and many more people will be encouraged to go in for car-sharing schemes and will find that technically they run foul of the law.
I still find it astonishing that after I and other hon. Members have been asking

questions for many years about the relationship of insurance to car sharing and its alteration, though Ministers have gone and come and gone, the Department of Transport has apparently not reached a suitable understanding.
Both the motoring organisations, the AA and the RAC, are genuinely very concerned about this matter. They rightly do not want to see their members put in a position in which, because they see the publicity attached to this extension of car sharing and its legalisation, they are perhaps unwittingly breaking the law and will find themselves convicted of driving without insurance.
Over the past two weeks I have approached the Motor Conference, which represents all the groups of motor insurers in the country. I was somewhat perturbed to discover that the Motor Conference was taking its stand on what it called the petrol-sharing arrangement, the arrangement that the motor insurers came to in 1973 during the fuel crisis when they stated that persons sharing a car who just covered the petrol expenses among themselves would not be regarded as taking part in a hire or reward operation so that a class 1 policy would apply. The motor insurers seem to take the line that that is as far as they want to go in relation to standard cover under the car-sharing arrangements which the Government are proposing in the Bill.
I do not believe that it is unanimous, but if the insurance industry is taking that view, I submit that the Government cannot do a Pontius Pilate act, wash their hands of the affair and say that it is a matter for the insurance companies and private individuals, because at the end of the day people will be breaking the law, laying themselves open to prosecution, because the Government have failed to face up to the problem.
Why do the insurance companies feel that they cannot provide the kind of cover required? Ostensibly, they say that it is because they are worried that too many people would operate on a purely private-hire basis, taking advantage of class 1 cover, but actually by running a commercial business. That is the line that the insurance companies take, and I am sure that the Government do not want, any more than we do, to encourage people to act illegally in that way. But one of


the interesting effects of the Government's proposed changes is to make absolutely clear the distinction between commercial operations of that kind and the sort of car-sharing operations in private cars which the Government expect to take place under the new proposals.
In these circumstances, I should have thought that that underlined the need for something to be done where that clear distinction has been made between, on one side of the line, hire or reward operations for which a certain kind of motor insurance policy is necessary and, on the other, car sharing which would be covered as part of the normal class 1 policy.
I do not for a moment think that there is any great additional risk involved for the insurance companies in doing that. I feel that the activities of many motorists are already being covered, in effect, because their insurers do not know of the car sharing will become more obvious because advertising for car sharing will be encouraged and people will think that they do not have to worry about it because it has been legalised by the Government.
On the other hand, if the insurance companies are to continue with their somewhat narrow line, because the Government refuse to legislate, we shall have a period of confusion and, at the end of the day, there will have to be legislation of one kind or another.
When the insurance companies say that this is all very difficult, I point out to them that a few years ago it was said to be impossible to cover passenger liability in respect of people riding on the back of a motor cycle, but it is no longer enormously expensive to cover that risk. I do not honestly think that the premium question which the Under-Secretary raised in Standing Committee is relevant here.
Although, to my regret, the Motor Conference could not accept the wording of our amendment or that the motor insurers should have responsibility, I took the trouble to write to the chief executive of perhaps the largest motor insurer in the country, the General Accident Fire and Life Insurance Corporation, and I am sure that the House will be interested to know what the general manager, Mr. C. B. Heath, had to say:

I cannot, of course, speak for the insurance market, but we, the General Accident, saw no objection to car sharing without charging an additional premium for the cover, provided, of course, that the policyholder did not derive profit from his activities.
In other words, that is the same kind of dividing line as the Government have established in their revised schedule.
What shall we find? Those motorists fortunate enough to be insured with General Accident—I am not advertising—will be able to feel that they can drive quite happily under car-sharing arrangements and be fully covered, and motorists insured with some other company or a Lloyd's syndicate will discover that they are not covered.
1.15 a.m.
I submit that that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is as unsatisfactory as it was when some motor insurers used to issue policies which excluded passenger liability. It needed the passage of the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) to make passenger liability compulsory to ensure that all persons could ride in cars in the knowledge that at least they were properly covered by the insurance policy.
If the industry is to take this divergent view within itself, the Government must take a greater interest in this aspect of what they are putting forward. If not, they will be rightly blamed for not having followed out the implications of what they are trying to do.
One problem is that, in their anxiety to do something, the Government have jumped a fence a little too early. They could easily have restricted the way in which car sharing was to have been spread. For example, they could have restricted it to people who shared a common place of work or a certain community interest. That might have satisfied some of the insurers who feel uncertain now.
My main criticism is that the Government appear to have taken the line that they did not need to go into this kind of detail. I find that unacceptable. As I said, it is five years since this issue was first raised—five years in which the Minister's advisers have known of the complications. I have no doubt that when the Bill becomes law, with a blaze of trumpets, as some great achievement by the Labour Government, they will say


"We have at long last instituted car sharing." But if, by so doing, the Government invite large numbers of our constituents effectively to break the law by driving without proper insurance, that would be reprehensible and irresponsible.
I must put forcefully to the Under-Secretary of State that he should consider this amendment. I am not asking him to say that this is the ideal way of dealing with the problem. I shall listen with interest to what he says. I think it is a pity that we did not have a separate debate on this amendment. This issue merits a separate debate. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will answer this point before going into the intricacies of any other amendment.
If the Under-Secretary cannot give a satisfactory answer, I assure him that we shall continue to press this matter. Indeed, we hope that our friends in another place will press it. I am convinced that if the Bill goes through as it stands—if there is no agreement between the insurers and the Government; the insurers giving some kind of undertaking that the bona fide car sharer as opposed to the private hire operator will be covered—sooner or later the pressure of events will force the Government to legislate. Surely it is better for the Government, before the Bill goes through the other House and perhaps gets on the statute book, to get together with the Motor Conference and the motor insurers to try to hammer out this matter. It is not an enormous problem. It is a question of the Government saying "We accept that we have opened up a new avenue, we can see that there are complications, we accept that you have given us the petrol-sharing concession, but we feel that you will have to give us a bit more." They should say that, first, to legalise the situation and, secondly, to cater for the future.
I believe that car sharing is important. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) gave some telling examples of car sharing and pooling in the United States. If we want to persuade people to share their cars to reduce the amount of energy being used, we must ensure that in no way can they be penalised by claims for damage to their cars not being met.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will take this serious point on board and be

aware that, if we do not get a satisfactory answer tonight, he will hear a lot more of this matter in the further stages of the Bill and in the months afterwards.

Mr. John Ellis: This is an interesting and important debate, and it is a pity that it is being held at such a late hour because there are vast implications. The remarks of the hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Fry) were very relevant.
I am indebted to the Automobile Association for its brief, which has been most useful. Let me make one general point. I do not want to twist anybody's tail too greatly, but it is remarkable to hear the Tory Front Bench insisting that a Labour Government should make private enterprise insurance companies do something or another. I shall be interested to hear the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on this subject. I think he will agree that this points to a failure of the free market economy since there appears to be a need to respond to something for which people will pay. If the insurance companies will not provide a service of this kind, perhaps the sensible thing which my Labour colleagues should do is to set up a nationalised insurance company to do the job properly right across the board.
It is a strange ideological position for the Tories to insist that the Government should make up for the deficiencies of the insurance companies. It is a sad day for private enterprise when those deficiencies are so bad that it takes them so long to respond to such a need. I think that is fair comment.

Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that the whole issue flows from proposed Government legislation and that the matter would not arise if car sharing were not to be legalised? I am criticising the Government for not following through the implications of what they are doing. I think it was during the period when unfortunaely the hon. Gentleman was absent from the House, owing to the temporary aberration of the electors of Bristol that this issue arose. Various assurances were given by Ministers to the effect that the matter would be sorted out, but here we are five years later with nothing having been done about the position.

Mr. Ellis: I think that my attendance in the Chamber has been most diligent throughout the day.

Mr. Fry: I was referring to the period when the hon. Gentleman lost his parliamentary seat.

Mr. Ellis: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am glad that he was not reproving me for any absence from this debate. It was certainly not my fault that I was absent from the House for that brief number of years.
I do not regard the comments in the hon. Gentleman's intervention as fair. The Government have created a set or circumstances in which people are able to travel as passengers in private cars. If the Conservatives are as enterprising as they say they are, they should have weighed in with cover for this contingency.
The brief from the AA says:
The insurance industry say they do not wish to go beyond allowing only 'petrol money'"—
the AA has gone as far as that—
as contributions because of their fear that 'quasi-taxi' operations, carrying passengers on private car policies as a 'sideline' will mushroom. But such operations are outside the relaxation allowed by the Bill, and such quasi-taxi operations will remain included within the public service vehicle licensing requirements.
That is the AA's assessment. That is much nearer the truth. Therefore, I felt it wrong that this aspect of the matter was appearing to go through without somebody uttering a few words of qualification.
I appreciate that the Government have been careful to limit the provision, but how careful should one be? The Opposition are not pressing for it to be a quasi-taxi operation within the public service vehicle licensing requirements, but the insurance companies are expressing their fears. That is the position which has been reached and it is important to consider the matter carefully.
I admit to having some fears on this aspect of the operation, whether it relates to car sharing or vehicles to be licensed for voluntary service. In the country districts the large bus operators who seek to provide a comprehensive service find themselves in tricky economic straits.

Therefore, if this matter gets out of hand, there will be insurance problems and it will also have an impact on the whole pattern of operation.
People may well do some of the things the insurers fear. If someone goes one stage further than the Bill allows, his passenger will not be properly covered. If he carried personal friends or workmates and there was an argument in the car, resulting in personal injury, or if someone fell getting out of the car, there could be great insurance difficulties. Perhaps in raising the difficulties the insurance companies are being wiser than we know, instead of committing themselves to provide cover willy-nilly. Rather than blame my hon. Friend for not forcing insurance companies to do something over which they might legitimately hesitate, there might be a real need to reconsider what we are doing and try to deal with the real problems.

Mr. Gow: Part of the welcome philosophy behind the Bill is a belated recognition by the Government of the need to liberalise our licensing laws. Amendment No. 36 carried that process an important stage further. The amendment would bring subsection 2(a) of Clause 5 into line with subsection 2(b). To the Government's credit, last year they supported the Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) which became the Passenger Vehicle (Educational and Other Purposes) Act 1977. It is difficult to see how a Government who approved of that Act, however reluctantly, can resist this amendment.
The restrictive licensing laws have operated against the public interest. It is that principle, which has been conceded by the Government, which will be violated by the Government if they do not accept the amendment. Why should vehicles adapted to carry no more than seven passengers and which fall outside the Minibus Act, be penalised? What is magic about the number seven? All sorts of magic figures appear in the frenzied minds of Government Ministers, but quite why the number seven should be so important, when in subsection 2(b) the Government themselves agree that the maximum number should be 16, is difficult to comprehend. Of course, Amendment No. 46 is the corollary of Amendment No. 36.
1.30 a.m.
I turn to Amendment No. 50 which relates to Schedule 1. That amendment seeks to replace sub-paragraph 3(3) with the new sub-paragraph in Amendment No. 50. Here again, the amendment which stands in the names of my hon. Friends would extend the liberalising purposes which the Government themselves have in mind. That amendment ought to be welcomed by the Government Front Bench. Indeed, it may well be that my hon. Friends tabled this amendment with the approval of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State, because I believe that the purpose of Amendment No. 50 is the purpose of the Government.
The difference between the subparagraph which would be substituted for Schedule 1 (3) (3) is simply that where there is expenditure to be incurred, that expenditure is something which would be lawful. I believe that sub-paragraph 3(3) as at present drafted, is unreasonably restricted. Let us suppose that an impoverished driver or owner wishes to make facilities available for a vehicle adapted to carry at most seven passengers. If that driver or owner is a small man, who is not in advantaged circumstances, I believe that that person should be entitled to receive contributions towards expenses, not just which have been incurred but which are to be incurred.
It is very easy to understand that an owner or driver of a small vehicle may easily incur expenses before he actually carries out the journey. He has to license his vehicle and pay for the petrol before the journey takes place. Why should not a driver-owner in those circumstances be allowed to receive contributions before hand? It is almost as if the Government were saying that they would legislate only for the opulent. I find that proposition wholly indefensible.
Why should we deny to those who wish to become passengers, in acordance with the provisions of Schedule 1, the facility for travelling in one of these vehicles if the driver or owner is a small man without resources? That, of course, was the purpose which my hon. Friends had in mind when they tabled Amendment No. 50. I hope that the Government will think it right and will accept that the sub-paragraph set out in the amendment is better drafted, more helpful and will

enable the small man without resources to provide facilities which otherwise he could not provide.
It would be the most astonishing proposition if from the Treasury Bench we had the rejection of a provision which would give protection to those who wished to travel and which would give assistance to the person of slender means who wished to provide a passenger facility for people in rural areas.
It is incredible that we should be debating this matter at all. It was the Opposition's hope that the Government would indicate that our amendment was acceptable in every way. I hope that we shall have that recognition and an acknowledgement that Amendment No. 50 is an important and meaningful improvement to the Bill.

Mr. Moate: I wish to refer to a number of the amendments in this group, and I begin with Amendment No. 35 which, as I understand it, extends the opportunities for advertising car-sharing facilities.
The amendment introduces the right to advertise at any place of work. But this is still a very restrictive approach. In Committee, I pointed out that one of the most likely means of communicating information of this kind to one's neigh-hours in a village, for example, would be by delivering handbills. But that will still be unlawful. I have no doubt that we could all think of other examples of fairly normal communications whereby people could advise their neighbours, friends and others that they were trying to create some joint user arrangements to travel to work. It is very restrictive to limit advertising facilities in the way that the amendment seeks to do.
If we are to have this new definition of who can and who cannot operate a car-sharing scheme which simply excludes anyone in the business of hiring out for reward, why cannot we allow greater facilities for advertising?
I am disappointed with the amendment. It could produce some foolish anomalies. In that respect, it has failed to achieve the desired objective.
I turn next to Amendment No. 36. There, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) seeks to leave out "7" and to insert "16". It is a most


helpful proposition. Time after time we nave sought to include the minibus in this more liberal approach. For many villagers, the prospect of having a larger vehicle available for public transport would make a very significant difference to them.
Again we come back to the fact that there will still be restrictions on the use of such a vehicle. It cannot be used for profit. It cannot be used for business purposes. But if a group of people wish to share a larger vehicle and the petrol costs, why do the Government wish to restrict its size? They have missed an opportunity here. They are imposing endless restrictions when they have this overall general restriction meeting the same purpose. I welcome any attempt at liberalisation, but the Government have been too timid by half. Amendment No. 36 would be a helpful step in the right direction and I hope that the Government will accept it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne also referred to Amendment No. 50. That has not been explained to us, but I presume that it allows the owner of a vehicle to receive rather more than just petrol costs and expenses incurred, as defined in the Bill. It says:
The driver or owner may receive contributions to expenses incurred or to be incurred by him as a result of driving the vehicle or making it available.
It is silly to restrict a car-sharing arrangement to such a small amount that the sharing will make no financial sense. If we want such arrangements to work, we must allow all expenses to be shared on a sensible basis.
The amendment carries the matter forward to a sensible degree. Arrangements would still be circumscribed by the general provision that a person could not run such a scheme for reward. The amendment would simply allow him to recover reasonable expenses incurred or to be incurred.
I can see no reason for the Government to oppose Amendment No. 50. But if we allow more expenses to be contributed by other parties, that brings us to the fundamental question of insurance. We owe my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) a debt of gratitude for raising this matter. Criticism should be levelled at the Government for not having made the position

much clearer by now. If insurance companies are to restrict their understanding of car sharing to petrol contributions only and the Bill goes further than that—and I suspect that it does, even without the amendment—the motorist could find himself placed in an undesirable position.

Mr. John Ellis: The document that I read from the AA made clear that the real fear of insurance companies was that they could get involved in the quasi-taxi business and they were concerned about how far liability would stretch. Presumably the AA had done its research on this matter.

Mr. Moate: I shall be coming to that. It is unsatisfactory that, after all these years, we still have such a doubtful position between the Government, the insurance companies and the public. We cannot allow that to continue when the Bill gets on that statute book. No one wants large numbers of motorists to be uncertain about the nature of their cover.
It may be that some insurance companies will adopt one attitude while others adopt another, but none will change the wording of policies. The companies will put a different legal interpretation upon the form of words, some of which have been prescribed by statute. To the extent that they are being prudent and sensible in interpreting the road traffic Acts and their obligations under them, it is important that we get the Bill right. If General Accident takes a liberal view, that will help its policyholders, but it makes the position less clear for other motorists. If some companies are generous and others are not in their interpretation of the wording, most motorists will not know how they are affected. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to try to clarify the position.
1.45 a.m.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), with his usual ingenuity, manages to reduce everything to an ideological dispute. He has done so again—even motor insurance—by saying that the blame lies with private motor insurance companies for not providing what the public want. He got it wrong. Insurance companies will give insurance cover for vehicles used for hire and reward for a certain premium. They are


trying to maintain the low level of premium—by international standards—which is charged to the ordinary motorist using his car for normal domestic purposes.

Mr. John Ellis: When I made that point it was on the premise of the hon. Member's Friends. The point I then tried to make was whether the insurance companies had much more legitimate fears about the areas they were getting into and what they were actually covering. That was where I quoted the AA document.

Mr. Moate: The hon. Member was seeking to suggest that the bus companies would have more to fear because the car-sharing could develop into car-hire operations. But generally we are talking about car sharing where bus services are not offering competing services. We are talking about villages in rural areas where car sharing will offer a valuable step forward.
If the insurance companies were asked to cover operations that could, conceivably, become car-hire, for the sake of protecting all motorists and their motor account generally they would have to increase the rate in anticipation of car-hire operations.
We must try to get a clear definition of "hire" and "reward" in this context. The latter from General Accident that my hon. Friend the Member for Welling-borough quoted made the point clearly. If the operation is not for profit it should be within the terms social, domestic and pleasure use of a private car as defined at present. Surely we can look to the Government to liaise with the insurance industry to produce the desired situation.
If we require further legal clarification, is it not possible to have further amendment of the Road Traffic Act and have a statement on the insurance certificate to the effect that the activities defined in Section 5 of the Transport Act 1978 fall within the category of normal social, domestic and pleasure use? That would clarify the position. The Government could organise this in conjunction with the insurance industry.
It would be wrong for this situation to be left as it is now. The Government, rightly or wrongly, have created the situation by introducing legislation that has brought in this element of uncertainty.

They cannot want this uncertainty to prevail once motorists start picking up passengers as defined in the Bill.
My hon. Friend has done a considerable service by moving this amendment and by the investigations that he has made. I hope that this will prompt the Government into action and that they will clear up all the uncertainties.

Mr. Younger: I certainly do not intend to add anything to the question or insurance as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has covered this. I hope that the Minister will reply to him.
I want to speak to one or two of the other amendments. I am grateful to the Government for the way in which they responded to the points in Committee, and made the alterations contained in the Government amendments. It is a great joy to see the abbreviation and simplification which has been achieved. I congratulate the Government and the draftsmen on doing this. It will make matters much easier. One unfortunate consequence of this is that it makes it even more than usually difficult to understand what would now be the effect of our Amendment No. 53. It is now an amendment to something which, if we accept the Government amendments, will no longer exist.
In the Minister's view, has Amendment No. 53 been overtaken by the intention of his reworded and redrafted portions of the clause and schedule? The purpose of Amendment No. 53 was further to liberalise the provisions for the making of advertisements by a person who is the prime mover in a car-sharing scheme.
Here I come to the key safeguard, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. I agree with him that the key factor is to be found in Schedule 1 (5) (3). As printed it is (6A) (3). This makes the clear qualification that:
Local authorities and traffic commissioners shall not give consent for the purposes of this paragraph where it appears that arrangements for provision of the facilities in question are, or are to be, made for any commercial purpose or with a view to profit; and consent shall be given only if the facilities are to be provided with a view to meeting the social and welfare needs of one or more communities.
That is a clear safeguard. All these amendments have to be seen against that.


It means that the amendments seeking to extend the flexibility and freedom of people who organise car-sharing schemes come up against the long-stop provision that these advertisements cannot be made if the whole arrangement has any element of commercial activity or profit in it.
We maintain that these liberalisations are all safeguarded by the long-stop provision. I hope that the Minister will look into this carefully. What we propose offers a way out for all of us and enables us to give the maximum flexibility to those organising these schemes.
I hope that the Minister will give an opinion on Amendment No. 53, if he can. What we want this to mean is that the person making arrangements for the journey shall have flexibility and freedom to advertise, provided that it is not a commercial or profit-making operation.
There are two purposes to Amendment No. 50 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) drew attention. The first purpose is to bring in the idea that the person organising the journey may well incur some expenditure before the journey takes place. I hope that the Miinster can meet us on that by accepting the amendment or, perhaps at a later stage in another place, dealing with the issue. It is obviously desirable that this should be done, and again we have the safeguard that nothing commercial can be considered. It is obviously desirable that a person without large resources who has to incur expenses should be able to receive contributions even if the expenses have not yet been incurred.
The second part of the amendment refers to the bringing in of the word remuneration. In Committee we discussed at considerable length the situation of a driver, who spent a considerable portion of his time driving a vehicle for a shared car scheme, who might be out of pocket by losing some of his employment, or some other factor. It was generally accepted that that could happen to a driver. But it could happen to a person making arrangements for the journey. That could be someone who had some other form of work to do but who had to make arrangements such as getting together the advertisements, getting together all the people, putting up advertisements and arranging for them to be

passed round. It might be that in those circumstances some form of remuneration would be needed. We agreed in Committee that that would not be the same as profit-making and would be a form of recompense for the time and energy expended in undertaking necessary work.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 46 relate to raising the limit from seven seats to 16. It is to be borne in mind that we have the safeguard that none of us is talking about anything that is profit-making or commercial. Surely the objective of the whole operation is to enable a vehicle that may be in a rural area, village or community, and owned by either an individual or body, to be used for taking others to and from a local town, or for some other errand, with each person making a contribution towards the cost. We are all agreed that that can happen with an ordinary private car.
The Government have accepted that a pretty large private car may come within that category. A Peugeot was described as the sort of car that could be involved. However, if one person in a village or community has a Peugeot that may carry seven passengers and he is allowed to use it for a shared-car scheme and another person has a minibus, that might have up to 16 seats but is a private vehicle, is in the community, is available for use, is not used commercially, and fits all the other criteria, why should the minibus be excluded because it has more than seven seats? I do not see the logic of that.
It is, as the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee, a matter of judgment and a matter of degree. However, if a community can transport 30 or 40 persons in a series of loads of seven in different cars, why is it so undesirable for 14 or 16 persons to be transported in one minibus, always providing that the operation is not commercial or profit-making? I do not see the logic of the exclusion.
I urge the Minister sympathetically to consider the amendments that seek an extension. There is no danger of a minibus used in the way that I have described competing in a commercial or profit-making way with the public transport system. Such arrangements are likely to be made only when there is no suitable public transport system. It is easier to


use a public transport system if there is one available. Where it is most unlikely that there is such a system it is most unfortunate to restrict the scheme by keeping it down to seven-seated vehicles. I accept that in most instances seven-seated vehicles will be quite sufficient, but why spoil a new scheme purely for the sake of making a restriction that is not necessary?
There is no reason to think that it is necessary to have such a restriction and I hope that the two amendments will be accepted. I hope that the Minister will not think that I am in any way ungrateful for the most acceptable way in which he responded to our words in Committee. We are most grateful to him for the flexible approach that he has adopted. We are all indebted to him for that. However, the Minister could crown the laurels that he has earned for that by accepting that, whereas we may have had some fairly good ideas in Committee on this matter, which he has accepted, we have still got some good ideas, and I very much hope that he will accept these. If he cannot accept all of them tonight—because we are all in a bit of confusion with this very large group of amendments—I hope that he will at least agree that where he thinks that we have still got a good point here, he will arrange for it to be looked at again in another place. This would extend the excellent scheme that the Minister is bringing in in a way that would be very useful for many people.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Horam: I hope to be able to crown my laurels, in the curious analogy that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has made, by pointing out that at least one of the amendments is met by the changed wording that we have put down and that another one I cannot accept for reasons which I shall explain in a moment.
I should like first to deal with the separate question of insurance, which perhaps would have been suitable for a separate debate, raised by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). I shall try to reassure him that what we are doing is sensible and that what he suggests is precipitate and not necessarily in the public interest. I doubt whether I shall succeed, because I know that he has a bee in his bonnet about this. I do not mean that

in any unkind way, because I know that he has been pressing this point for many years, and he has considerable experience in the insurance business. Therefore, he presses the matter with the advantage of that experience and knowledge, which we do not have.
However, I think that if I put the situation to him in this way, it might help him and the House to understand the matter clearly. We are essentially making legal the taking of a payment for giving lifts on a regular basis. Existing motor insurance policies may not completely cover that. The hon. Member is essentially saying that we should enact a law to make sure that that cover is absolutely comprehensive. That is his position.
I should like to make two points to the hon. Member. First, the extent to which insurance does not cover the situation is less than he suggests. Social car schemes will be covered. Generally, I imagine that a collective insurance will be taken out by the person who is organising a social car scheme. Secondly, as the hon. Member agreed, the taking of money to offset petrol costs will be covered by the ordinary insurance.
After all, what we are talking about is a situation in which people have probably been giving lifts and have not been aware that they were committing an illegality in taking from their neighbours, or from whoever they have been taking it, some contribution towards petrol costs. That is the simple fact of the matter. We are making that legal.
By doing that, we are dealing with the heart of the problem. Anyone who takes more than petrol costs or tries to make a profit out of it, if one can put it in those terms, is going rather beyond the situation which most people would recognise as the more normal one—that if they give lifts, they will probably expect their passengers to make a contribution to petrol costs.

Mr. Fry: Surely the Under-Secretary is not trying to tell us that anyone who takes more than a share of the petrol costs is making a profit. Let me put it to the hon. Gentleman that anyone who is running a car can have available the average mileage cost, provided by, say, the AA or the RAC, and to share expenses on that basis would be more than sharing petrol costs but would still not


entail making a profit. Will the hon. Gentleman please address himself to that point? This is exactly the area in which the difficulties will arise.

Mr. Horam: I deliberately used the term "making a profit" in quotation marks, as it were, because I was simply using a shorthand term for going beyond asking simply for petrol costs. What I was saying was that it is the contribution towards petrol which in most cases is what we are talking about, which is the normal arrangement. But I agree that in many instances people will make a different arrangement which goes further than that. That is not, in a sense, taking account of depreciation and so on, making a profit in a strict sense. I accept that. I accept the hon. Member's point. I was merely using shorthand to describe the situation about which we are talking.
Social car schemes are also satisfactory on petrol costs. But if we adopt the full scheme suggested by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, costs to the ordinary motorist might be involved. He asserts that there will be little extra cost. That is a matter for dispute. Perhaps one should explore that more fully. Extra costs could be involved for the ordinary motorists by making such a provision part of the insurance. Many motorists will not wish to take advantage of the legalised position and will not indulge in car sharing. But they might have to pay extra. The cost of insurance has risen in the last few years, and one should think twice about imposing that extra cost.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Wellingborough is worried about the situation. As he knows, we are involved in discussions with the insurance industry. So far the discussions have taken place between officials of my Department and the industry. I have written to the chairman of the appropriate body and I hope to have a meeting soon with him and his colleagues. They have already agreed to additional publicity to explain the petrol cost provision. They have now told me that they are prepared to consider endorsing individual policies to make the petrol cost position absolutely clear. They have not agreed to that but they are considering it. If they are willing to go down that path, that would help the problem of making people aware of what their policies cover.
I make a commitment to the hon. Member personally. I shall probe further the specific provision in the amendment.

Mr. Moate: The Under-Secretary of State says that there will be publicity and perhaps endorsement of individual policies. Is he saying that there will be a restriction and that if a motorist receives a contribution in excess of the cost of petrol he will be uninsured?

Mr. Horam: One would have to make explicit by an over-printing on the policy the statement made by the insurance companies two years ago that petrol costs could be recovered within the terms of the normal insurance but costs above that could not. That would make the position clear to each person—if each read his policy. Many people do not read their policies and they would not know. But that is going as far as is reasonable to make the position clear. I shall press further with the insurance industry the hon. Member's argument and make clear the feelings expressed in the debate.

Mr. Fry: All that we are asking is that car sharing should not be considered to be hire or reward. It was customary for many years for a normal class I policy to include the business use in person by the policyholder. There have been developments and certain insurers have removed the business use in person by the policyholder and lower premiums have been charged.
As long as a division is made about hire or reward it can still be up to insurers to make individual arrangements and offers such as omitting cover for car sharing under the terms of a particular policy. That could be slightly cheaper than a policy which covers car sharing. But doing that only underlines the necessity of showing that car sharing does not constitute hire or reward. If it does—and the Under-Secretary, in spite of what he said tonight, made it clear in Committee that many of the car-sharing uses would be hire and or reward—people will have difficulty getting the right insurance cover. They will be convicted of driving without insurance.

Mr. Horam: What the hon. Gentleman has said is on all fours with the point of his amendment. I will make the general point to the insurance industry. We have made the point already, but we will push


this further and explain the general feelings of the House and of the Standing Committee.
Because of the changes that the Government have made—I hope helpfully—some of the Opposition amendments now relate to parts of the Bill which have been removed. Amendment No. 53 is not overtaken by our amendments and we must resist it. The point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made about what is now Schedule 1 paragraph 5(3) is not correct. The general guarantee that he mentioned relates only to social car schemes, and therefore Amendment No. 53 would have been, if the schedule had not been amended, attached to that part of the schedule which deals with private car sharing. That would have allowed general advertising by individuals who were operating private car-sharing schemes. That would have been contrary to the general spirit of what we are trying to do.
Similarly, that general guarantee does not apply either to Amendment No. 50. That, too, would in a sense drive a coach and horses through our general provisions by making it possible to organise general car sharing in a way with which we disagree, and in a way that would wrongly damage public transport.
The substance of Amendment No. 49 is met by the changes in the Bill. That covers a point made in Committee by the Opposition. We cannot accept the amendment because it is now attached to nothing. The substance of the point is, however, met by the revised wording of the schedule.
Amendment No. 36, which is coupled with Amendment No. 46, would allow vehicles designed to carry seven passengers to carry 16. I do not know what the Opposition are trying to do in this remarkable proposal, which is curious even by the standards of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Perhaps they ate seeking the higher productivity they failed to secure through British Rail accounts in this way. Apart from that bizarre approach to the use of large cars. I take the general point that they want car sharing to be extended to larger vehicles, not merely to permit more people to be carried in a small vehicle.
2.15 a.m.
This comes back to the point of which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made much in the Standing Committee—that we should initiate the sort of van-sharing schemes which are evident in America. But conditions in America are very different from those here. The schemes have been used there to fill a gap, because in America public transport has declined and even disappeared in many urban areas, certainly in suburban areas, whereas it has not here. Therefore, it is not as necessary here, and it would do more damage here. Moreover, there are lower densities in many urban areas in America. Van sharing for that reason, too, is more appropriate, because public transport operating in these low density situations cannot survive as it can in this country.
For those two reasons we must continue to reject the pet notion of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gow: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 10, leave out '6' and insert '3'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to take Amendment No. 8, in line 15, at end insert—
(7) If a District Council shall disagree with the policies laid down by a county council, as provided in subsection (1) hereof, then any such district council shall have the right to refer the issue is dispute to the Secretary of State whose decision thereon shall be final and binding.".

Mr. Gow: Under the provisions of subsection (6), where a sum of money is due from a county council to a district council there can be a delay of six months from the time at which a notice is served by the district council on the county council before the sum in dispute can be referred to arbitration. The amendment's purpose is to reduce the period of six months to three months.
Amendment No. 8 provides for the Secretary of State to deal with any dispute not about money but about other matters between a district council and a county council. Amendment No. 7 relates only to the question of the time limit which should expire before the dispute can be referred to an arbitrator.
To take a specific example, in my constituency there is the Eastbourne District Council. If the Bill should reach the statute book, the council, a district council for the purposes of the Bill, may be required to carry out transport policies in accordance with the provisions of the clause. If in carrying out its duties it incurs expenditure which it would not have incurred unless there had been a requirement laid upon it by the county council, the district council could be seriously out of pocket. The purpose of the amendment is simply to say that where a district council in accordance with instructions given to it by a county council incurs expenditure, and there is a dispute as to the amount, we should shorten the time scale for reimbursement of the district council.
I come before the House to make a plea on behalf of district councils, which are almost always less opulent than county councils. I do not see why the Government have selected a period of six months. Surely Ministers are as keen as those of us on the Opposition Benches to try to speed up administration. Why should a district council be out of pocket, getting no interest on the money it has laid out, for a period of six months before it even goes to arbitration?
My Amendment No. 7 is modest. Had I been a little bolder, I should have proposed that the period be two months, but, out of deference to the Government Front Bench and with the customary modesty that the House has come to expect from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I have merely halved the Government's period.
Mercifully, the Secretary of State is in his place. He will tell us why he has chosen the period of six months, and he will, no doubt, say why he thinks it reasonable that a district council which has laid out money should be precluded from going to arbitration for a period of six months.
Who is the arbitrator? The Government suggest that the arbitrator should be the president of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. I confess that that is a gentleman—or a person, as I suppose we have to say nowadays—of whom I had never previously heard. I am sure that that person is

immensely distinguished, but I wonder where to find him. If one is a lowly district council, having laid out thousands of pounds at the request of the county council, to whom does one submit one's claim for arbitration?
I do not have with me the telephone directory. Perhaps one of my hon. Friends could go in search of it so that we might see whether the president of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy is to be found listed there.
It is relevant to ask who appoints this person. Presumably this is another area of Government patronage. I do not know who appoints the president of this body. But we may be fairly certain that if a dispute is referred to him he will not be a person who will arbitrate at once. If I know anything about arbitrators, they sometimes take a great time, and, if there is to be a great deal of time in resolving the arbitration once it is referred to him, that is all the more reason for cutting down the initial time from six to three months.
I regard Amendment No. 7 as of considerable importance, and I move it solely in order to protect the district council and, of course, the ratepayers of the district council.
Amendment No. 8 also is a plea on behalf of the district council, to provide that where a duty is laid upon a district council as provided in Clause 1, and the district council finds itself in disagreement with the county council, the district council shall have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I have always been under the impression that the Government Front Bench would be in favour of appeals to Ministers where there is a dispute between a district council and a county council.
Again, I give an example from my constituency. The Eastbourne Borough Council happens to be the owner and manager of the oldest municipal bus undertaking in the world.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gow: I shall not now go into the argument whether it is a good or bad


thing for district councils to own municipal bus undertakings, but the reality—I am glad to have the support of hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side—is that the Eastbourne Borough Council owns buses. It operates those buses in such a way that it is proposing in the current financial year to break even. It is not on every occasion that the aim of a local authority to break even is realised, but, happily, the Eastbourne Borough Council has a substantial Conservative majority, and I hope that that excellent objective of breaking even will be achieved.
Let us suppose that under Clause 1 an obligation is laid upon the Eastbourne Borough Council, being the owner and operator of buses, so to operate those buses that it is not enabled to achieve the extremely desirable objective of breaking even, or, of course, as I would argue, the objective of making a profit. Suppose the county council, in accordance with the plan or, coming to Clause 2, in accordance with the five-year plan, were to say "We require you, the Eastbourne Borough Council, to operate your buses in such a way that they do not make a profit or break even." Suppose the Eastbourne Borough Council then said to the county council "We do not think that this is a good idea. We think that we should be allowed to operate our buses as we have done in the past, and we find ourselves in disagreement with you." Why should the borough council be compelled to do that which the county council directs it to do when the borough council is accountable to its own ratepayers—accountable, in fact, to my constituents?
That is why these two amendments have been linked together. They are linked not only in the selection of the Chair but in reality. That is an agreeable situation as well.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to provide that, where there is a disagreement between a district council and a county council, there should be not the absolute override powers of the county council but an appeal.
How could the Secretary of State object to an appeal being made to him? Do not all Ministers rejoice in appeals being made to them? Do they not rejoice in having a chance to impose the ministerial

will when deciding between the virtues of a borough council and a county council? Ought not the Secretary of State to be nodding rather than shaking his head? It is true that it is his head, but he should be giving some sign of friendly response to these modest amendments.
That is not all. Looking at Clause 2, we find that this may not be a once-forall situation. It may not be that there is just one disagreement between a county council and a district council. We have the influence of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends below the Gangway. There is a passion for five-year plans on the Government side of the House. I am not keen on five-year plans. I believe that they are likely to go awry. Five-year plans which have been tried further east than this place have not been great successes.
Therefore, I find that the initial folly is compounded by Clause 2. Not only are we to have a plan which, in the words of Clause 1(1)(a)(i), is supposed
to develop policies which will promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the county's needs",
but, under Clause 2, we have to
prepare and publish a public passenger transport plan for the succeeding period of five years".
Therefore, there may be a period of continuing dispute between the district council and the county council.
If the Bill is unamended, disputes which take place between the little and relatively impoverished district council and the large and relatively well off county council will always be resolved in favour of the county council.
I do not find that just, equitable or sensible, and it is less just, less equitable and less sensible when I find that the district council, which has been compelled to lay out money in accordance with the county council's plan, cannot go to arbitration for six months.
Taking these two amendments together I believe that I have the unlikely support of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). That is a remarkable situation. Possibly I also have on my side the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, because I know that this matter is close to his heart. I am sure I can look to his support in the Division Lobby.
I am not so sure that I carry with me my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but that will be not for the first time. It is not necessary for those on the Back Benches always to find themselves in agreement with those who occupy the Front Benches. That is why I commend the amendment to the House.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with a good deal of the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). We all know that in the present set-up district councils have to collect money for county councils. It seems strange that the district councils, having gone through that operation, find that they have to wait six months before they can do anything about county councils which owe them money. Since a good deal of the money is borrowed, it is a costly exercise if a district council is owed money in this way. That council loses interest, because it could find ways of using the money by investing, perhaps in the short term, so that the capital is not wasted.
I agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but for different reasons. In Bristol, where we have a Labour City Council, it may be said—and indeed I hope it would be said—"For social reasons we do not wish to run our bus service at a profit but want to provide a social service". However, the county council, which is Tory-controlled, will take the hon. Gentleman's line and say "No, you must run at a profit".
The hon. Gentleman put the matter in contrasting terms. There would be a conflict if a county council, such as Avon, were to tell a district council, such as Bristol, "You must run your bus service at a profit". I hope that my colleagues on Bristol District Council would say "We believe that we should be operating much more of a social service, and therefore we are happy to put £X into the bus service to enable it to be run as a public social service rather than at a profit."
If there were such a conflict, I believe that the only Department that could handle that situation would be the Department under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. It would be unacceptable if the matter were put in the hands of anybody else.
As I am convinced that in the next couple of decades the Secretary of State for Transport will be a Labour Minister, I should be happy to see the matter in my right hon. Friend's hands. He would say to Bristol District Council "In this complex situation you are right to spend more money to subsidise the bus service to operate a social service" and his decision would go against the Tory-controlled Avon County Council. I hope that the Secretary of State will give clear answers to the important questions which have been raised.

Mr. William Rodgers: At one stage we were being teased by the soporific sophistries of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), until in rousing himself he roused my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and formed an unusual alliance. With respect to both hon. Gentlemen, there is some misunderstanding of the reasons for the clauses concerned, so they deserve an explanation.
The curious thing is that Amendment No. 7 proposes three months, while nine months was mentioned in Committee. The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked for the reason for the period of six months. That provision comes straight from the Local Government Act 1972. I can understand my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West finding that distasteful because that was not one of the most distinguished pieces of legislation of our generation. But the hon. Member for Eastbourne, perhaps with some loyalty to those who were here a little before him, may feel that the provision has an attributable origin, if not a distinguished one.
We did not pick six months out of the air. In the light of the discussion in Committee, however, we felt it right to consult the ACC and the ADC. The latter was mildly in favour of a longer period. So, far from moving in the direction that district councils might have wished, the hon. Member for Eastbourne, for the best of all possible reasons, is moving the other way. I am not saying that the ADC is always right or that it was right this time, but if it would wish to move one way and the hon. Member to move another, I think that that is a good reason for staying where we are.
On Amendment No. 8, the hon. Member was interesting on the problem of


seeking to arbitrate between Eastbourne and the county council. I understand my hon. Friend urging the merits of the Secretary of State arbitrating, but it is very unusual for the hon. Member for Eastbourne to thrust more responsibility upon Ministers. Most of the time he seeks to take it away.

Mr. Ron Thomas: He has seen the light at last.

Mr. Rodgers: I should like to believe that, but let us consider his subsequent habits. Everybody is capable of travelling the road to Damascus, but it does not happen overnight. This may be just a temporary late night conversion for the hon. Gentleman.
Much though I enjoy my ministerial authority, there is a limit to its extension. I do not wish to be an arbiter between two tiers of local government. If that happened, not only would it be an additional

Division No. 217]
AYES
[2.39 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Hicks, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Brooke, Peter
Knox, David
Mr. Ian Gow and


Fry, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Mr. Roger Moate.




NOES


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Pardoe, John


Archer, Peter
Evans, John (Newton)
Park, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Harry (stirling)
Parry, Robert


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Penhaligon, David


Bates, Alf
Flannery, Martin
Radice, Giles


Bean, R. E.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Miss Jo


Beith, A. J.
Freeson, Reginald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bishop, E. S.
Golding, John
Roderick, Caerwyn


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bradley, Tom
Harper, Joseph
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefleld)
Rowlands, Ted


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Horam, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sever, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Cohen, Stanley
Kinnock, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Coleman, Donald
Lamborn, Harry
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Cowans, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McElhone, Frank
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
MacKenzie, Gregor
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Davidson, Arthur
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Whitehead, Phillip


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Meacher, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Deakins, Eric
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woof, Robert


Dempsey, James
Mitchell, Austin
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Dormand, J. D.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Duffy, A. E. P.
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Ted Graham and


Dunnett, Jack
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. James Hamilton.


Ellis, John (Brigg A Scun)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Question accordingly negatived.

burden on Ministers and strengthen the central Government where I would wish to strengthen local government: it would also create problems for those elected in either tier, who carry responsibilities and must get together to solve their problems.

In other clauses that we shall come to, it is demonstrated that the two tiers of local government can get together and solve their problems without reference to me. I hope that the hon. Member will accept my view and not wish to press Amendment No. 8 any more than Amendment No. 7.

Mr. Gow: In view of what the Secretary of State has said, I do not wish to press Amendment No. 8. But I do propose to press Amendment No. 7.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 103.

Clause 2

COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORT PLANS

Mr. Gow: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 3, line 17, leave out "1979" and insert
1980 or such later date as the Secretary of State shall appoint".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 20, leave out from "plan" to end of line 23 and insert "when it thinks fit".

Mr. Gow: Clause 2(1)(a) provides that a metropolitan district council shall prepare and publish a public passenger transport plan for the ensuing five years not later than 31st March next year. We have not yet reached the end of the Report stage of the Bill and we are moving towards the end of May. It would be very much more realistic to provide that the date by which county councils must produce their five-year plans should be 31st March 1980 or such later date as the Secretary of State may appoint.
It is unrealistic to invite county councils to prepare and publish a plan for five years ahead in the short time—if there is any time at all—that will elapse between the Bill receiving Royal Assent and the date required for publication of the plans. Who knows how long the Bill will take in another place? It may not receive Royal Assent until late July or early August. Indeed, it may not receive Royal Assent until the autumn and we may have a General Election then.
I am not very keen on five-year plans anyway, and if I could defer their coming into operation, that would be a cause dear to my heart. However, there is another purpose behind the amendments. It would be open to an incoming Secretary of State—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler)—to relieve county councils of the obligation to produce a five-year plan. At worst, the amendment would postpone the date by a year and at best, it would postpone the date for very much longer.
Amendment No. 13 provides that a plan shall be produced by a county council whenever it thinks fit. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr.

Thomas) was almost on my side on the last amendment. We are both keen to preserve the rights of local authorities. Amendment No. 13 also should command the hon. Member's sympathetic attention. It provides that the republication of a plan should take place whenever the non-metropolitan county council thinks fit. I do not think it is right for the Bill to lay down that there should be specific dates for republication. Why not leave it to the county councils concerned? Why not devolve power from the centre and give it to the county council. For these reasons I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. William Rodgers: On Amendment No. 9, it is a reasonable principle that once the wish of Parliament is determined, it is proper to get a move on. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was frank enough to say that he was not very keen on the plans anyway, and it is a legitimate dodge to suggest that the evil day might be postponed.
We warned the county councils of our intentions before the Bill was published. It is up to them to prepare for the likelihood of the Bill passing through the House. I do not think that they will be inconvenienced by producing the first plan by 31st March 1979.

Mr. Loyden: Will the Secretary of State consider the question of the Mersey ferries? These will be the responsibility of the county council. These are transport facilities in my area which cannot be viable in the general economic transport sense. Other considerations should be given to the question of facility in the area if the clause is not amended, will this mean that the locality cannot decide this matter? Would there be a reference to the county council, and is there a possibility of its considering the question before the Secretary of State makes his decision?

Mr. Rodgers: I reassure my hon. Friend, the Member for Rochester and or not in the way that the hon. Member for Eastbourne has proposed, it will have no effect on the serious matter of the Mersey ferries. The present proposal would not affect either way this very real problem.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne freely admitted that Amendment No. 13 was a


wrecking amendment. Therefore, he would not expect me to accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 3, leave out lines 25 to 43 and insert—

"(a) a review of the county's needs, and the needs of communities comprised in it, in respect of public passenger transport services, and the extent to which those needs are met by existing services (this review to be accompanied by an account of the criteria applied to determine need);
(b) a description of—

(i) the council's policies and objectives for public passenger transport, and the services and facilities they consider to be needed by the county; and
(ii) the measures proposed for securing them in the short, and also in the longer, term;

(c) estimates of the financial resources required for the realisation of those policies and objectives, with proposals for obtaining such resources; and
(d) an account of how far forecasts in earlier plans have been, and are being, realised as regards the availability and use of such resources.".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, and Amendment No. 18 in page 4, line 28, at end insert—
(6) The Secretary of State shall not in connection with accepting a county council's expenditure for the purposes of section 6 of the Local Government Act 1974 require, directly or indirectly, any changes in the policy of the county as set out in their public transport plan".

Mr. Rodgers: These are, in a sense, tidying up amendments dealing with problems arising from the Committee.
3.0 a.m.
The first part of Amendment No. 15 deals with matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean). Similarly, paragraph (d) in the amendment deals with a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis). What we have attemped to do in this and subsequent amendments is to meet the legitimate points made in Committee, when there was some criticism of the order of the clauses and the logic of the argument. I hope that we have gone a long way, perhaps the whole of the way, to satisfy those who raised these matters.
I wish to draw attention to that part of Amendment No. 16 dealing with the

problem of the relationship between the county councils and the district councils. This was discussed at length in Committee when a number of my hon. Friends expressed considerable anxieties about the isolated position of the districts and the extent to which they would not be able to make their views known. It was at that stage, in response to the powerful arguments of my hon. Friends in particular, that I said that I wanted to return to the matter and consider it with the district and county councils. I said that I would prefer not to have any new powers of my own to make an arbitration. We have redrafted part of this clause to meet the needs of the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils. They have endorsed it, and I hope that the House will do likewise.

Mr. Norman Fowler: On behalf of the Opposition I welcome these amendments. I particularly pay attention to the amendment concerning the position of the district councils. It would have been fairer for the Secretary of State to say that the position on this issue was put not only by his hon. Friends but by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. What we sought to do was to find a way in which the situation of the district councils could be strengthened. The suggestion of an appeal was regarded as unsatisfactory. The Government amendment has the considerable advantage that it is agreed by both the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils. I had a meeting with the latter earlier this week when it stressed its satisfaction with the situation. That being the case, the House should take note of the position and act accordingly.

Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) should remember that it is the way that an hon. Member votes that counts. In Committee those of us who took a stand on behalf of the district councils claimed that they were being left out in the cold. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bean), the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and I voted in favour of that proposition.
The Minister has done what he undertook to do. This amendment strengthens the position of the district councils. I should have liked their position to be


strengthened even more. It would have been interesting to see what the result would be had we voted earlier on Amendment No. 8. I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts, which go some way to meeting our objections.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 4, line 3, at end insert
enter into consulations with—

(a) public passenger transport service operators in the county, or their representatives;
(b) district councils in the county; and
(c) the following, if they or their areas may be affected by the policies described in the plan—

(i) other county councils,
(ii) the Greater London Council, and
(iii) joint planning boards set up under section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

(d) where they have entered into a contract for the carriage of containers or goods in containers (with or without provisions in the contract specifying whether the carriage is to be by road or by rail), and the contract is to be performed predominantly by rail carriage, to use any road vehicles in partial discharge of their obligations under the contract;

and 'containers' means high capacity containers of a kind capable of being carried by freightliner rail vehicles.
(6) The annual report made by the Board under section 4 of the Railways Act 1974 shall include, in addition to the matters there mentioned, such information about the Board's exercise of their powers under subsection (5) above as may be called for by the Secretary of State.".

No. 17, in page 4, leave out lines 4 to 28.—[Mr. William Rodgers.]

Clause 3

AGREEMENTS WITH OPERATORS

Mr. Gow: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, and 25. We may also discuss Amendment No. 24, in page 4, line 43, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Gow: Clause 3(1) lays an unspecified duty on non-metropolitan county councils to enter into agreements with persons carrying on public passenger

transport undertakings. It is wrong that there should be a compulsory obligation laid upon county councils. That duty should be permissive in Clause 3(1) as in Clause 3(2). I do not understand how it is possible to lay an unspecified obligation on a non-metropolitan county council to enter into agreements.
What would happen if a county council decided not to enter into an agreement? The county council might well be able to carry out all the duties laid upon it under subsections (1) and (2) without entering into any of the agreements that are specified in Clause 3(1).
I am sure that when the Under-Secretary of State replies he will agree that it may be possible for a county council to fulfil all its duties without entering into any of the agreements that are specified in Clause 3(1). The purpose of the amendment is to make sense of the clause. I do not know what would happen if a non-metropolitan county council, having carried out all its other duties under Clauses 1 and 2, found it was able to carry out its duties without entering into such an agreement as is specified in subsection (1). There is no point in making it obligatory in subsection (1) but not in subsection (2).
The amendment is intended as a drafting provision. Surely the Government must agree that it was their intention that the provisions of the two subsections should be the same.

Mr. Horam: I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), which he advanced in Committee. However, we must place an onus on county councils to conclude agreements of this sort. To make the duty entirely permissive, which the change from "shall" to "may" would do, would be to take any point out of the area of responsibility that we are placing with county councils. If they are to have agreements for establishing public transport plans, they must have some financial under-pinning. They must have an arrangement with the operator which gives the operator some sort of guarantee. If the duty is made entirely permissive, that would obviously come about less often than we think right.
The hon. Gentleman did not speak on Amendment No. 24—

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we also considering Amendment No. 24?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are considering Government Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 inclusive, Amendment No. 24 and Government Amendment No. 25.

Mr. Horam: It may be that I anticipate the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I apologise for speaking inadvertently ahead of him. To reduce the agreement from three years to one year would, if taken together with his other amendment, reduce the content of the clause to almost nothing. The point about these agreements—we have been over the ground—is that the operators have made the point that they need some sort of financial guarantee if they are to plan properly.
I think that what we agreed in Committee makes sense, in terms of both the technical provisions in the Bill and the practical financial arrangements on the ground floor. They should stick together. I therefore reject the hon. Member's amendments.
However, I am sure that the hon. Member will be aware that we took on board some of the points made by the Opposition in the debate on this part of the Bill. The cluster of amendments, Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23 and 25, in fact meets a point that was made very strongly by the Opposition—that it was unreal to divorce the agreement from the finance, since that was the underlying purpose of the agreement. I agreed to consider that point on Report. The point made on that matter by the Opposition is very reasonable. By including a reference to financial support in paragraph (a), it is possible to leave out paragraph (b) without altering the effect of the subsection.
I think that we have gone some way to meet the legitimate points made by the Opposition on this question. I am sorry that we cannot go any further, but we feel that to alter the Bill any further in this direction would make it so permissive as to be almost meaningless.

Mr. Gow: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 4, line 32, leave out '(a)'.

No. 21, in page 4, line 34, after 'retention', insert 'and financing'.

No. 22, in page 4, line 36, leave out from 'available' to end of line 39.

No. 23, in page 4, line 40, leave out
and provide financial assistance to".

No. 25, in page 4, line 43, leave out '(1) (a)' and insert '(1)'.—[Mr. Horam.]

Mr. Horam: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 5, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'but' in line 26 and insert
the council giving, and complying with, such written undertakings of confidentiality as may be requested by those persons as a condition of the information being furnished".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Amendment No. 27, in page 5, line 29, at end insert—
(7) Where any of the persons specified in section 1(4) above is required to provide information as set out in subsection (5) above the county council shall repay to such person the amount of the cost of providing that information and if the amount is not agreed within three months of the date on which the infromation was supplied to the county council the amount shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President for the time being of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.".

Mr. Horam: Amendment No. 26 is also something that we have accepted from the Opposition. I think that they will remember the reasoning behind it. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) raised the point. It concerns the question of confidentiality. On reflection, I think that the way in which we have rephrased the clause meets the point that the Opposition made in Committee.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the point that I raised in Committee. There is no doubt that this will be helpful as it will give the assurance to people who have to produce information which they may regard as confidential that if they specifically ask for it to be confidential they will be sure that it will be regarded and dealt with as such.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

COMMUNITY BUS SERVICES

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, Amendment No. 29, in page 5, line 42, leave out '16' and insert '20'.
Clause 4 deals with community bus services. As I have explained before, we welcome very much that modest measure of liberalisation of the licensing laws that is enshrined in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to extend that liberalisation a little further. Under subsection (2) as it stands, the liberalisation extends only to those vehicles which can carry a maximum of 16 passengers. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the vehicle to have not 16 passengers but 20.
We had a debate earlier tonight about how the Government arrived at the figure of six months for the purpose of an appeal to an arbitrator. The Secretary of State explained to the House that that was the period that was taken from the Local Government Act 1972. Now we ask the Secretary of State to tell the House why it is that he hit upon the figure of 16. One can have a perfectly satisfactory community bus which carries not 16 passengers but 20.
3.15 a.m.
As I have been on other occasions, I was tempted to be even more bold and say that a community bus, whatever the number of passengers it carries, should come within the exemptions of Clause 4. But, being a person who makes modest proposals, I am suggesting only that the number of passengers should be increased from 16 to 20.
What can be the objection to 20 passengers and a slightly larger bus? These community bus services operate mainly in the rural areas. Why should we not have a community bus which can carry 20 passengers from a remote village or hamlet to the market town to meet the needs of the community? Why should passengers be disappointed and frustrated if the bus is full?
The amendment is in the interests of those who wish to travel on a community bus. It is against restriction and in favour of liberalisation. I hope that this modest measure will be accepted.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) moved the amendment with his usual charm. I recall, perhaps with equal charm, his change to the title of the Minibus Act. He was responsible for changing the title of that Act from a clumsy legal version to the more succinct title by which it is now known. As a result of that Act we tend to define a minibus as a vehicle carrying 16 passengers. That is the size of vehicle that voluntary bodies normally use.
That definition is also used in European legislation. By using the same definition we achieve consistency in the various legislation involving the minibus. We are now dealing with the same vehicle—one which carries 16 passengers.
Not only does this make sense in terms of consistency in legislation but it makes technical sense, because the largest number of seats which can be fitted conveniently on to the basic Ford transit chassis is 16.
For all these reasons I do not wish to go above that number. We have settled a standard which makes good sense. Having experienced various upgradings of seating capacities, I feel that it would be wrong to make a change in the Bill.
I understand the spirit of the amendment but we have reached a sensible position. Everyone will know what is meant by a minibus. Manufacturers will be able to produce a standardised vehicle. That is an important consideration. Vehicles of this type behave in a similar way to private cars. Larger vehicles with 20 to 24 seats would have different handling characteristics and one would have to consider public service vehicle licensing. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastbourne would regret that. With regret, I must resist the amendment.

Mr. Gow: The Minister's reply was intensely unconvincing. He said that we had to follow the precedent set down in the 1977 Act on minibuses and then said that the restriction to 16 passengers resulted from Community membership. Hon. Members who were anxious about Britain's accession to the Treaty of Rome will not have had their fears allayed by that observation. What is the Minister's authority for saying that the limit in the Community is 16? I believe that in France and Italy there are no such restrictions on community buses. Surely he is not


saying that there has been a directive forbidding us from having community buses with a capacity greater than 16 passengers. I hope that in another place the amendment will be considered again, but in order to make progress now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Gow: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 6, line 24 leave out
must be a volunteer and".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also take Amendment No. 31, in page 6, line 38, leave out subsection (6).
We may also take Government Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.

Mr. Gow: It is one of the extraordinary features of Clause 4 that the driver of a community bus must be unpaid. If there is no adequate existing bus service and unpaid volunteer drivers cannot be obtained to drive a community bus, the citizens who live in the area will have to do without it. If my amendment is made, they will be able to have a community bus service.
The Cuckmere community bus service operates in my constituency. It is provided by volunteer drivers. Other parts of the country may be unable to find volunteers. The Under-Secretary said in Committee that he hoped that the community bus service would be extended. But in Clause 4 the Government are saying that if no one can be found to do the work for nothing, there can be no service. Someone who was retired or who did not have to work might very well be prepared to be a volunteer driver. But one might equally find that one could not obtain a driver for a community bus unless one paid him. Therefore, I do not see the logic in the Government's case in saying "If you can't get a volunteer driver, you won't have a community bus." My amendment will facilitate the operation of community buses, which is the Government's own declared objective. I hope that on reflection the Under-Secretary will agree that where a volunteer driver cannot be found it should be permissible to pay a driver.
There is another aspect. The present unemployment figures are hovering uneasily between 1½ million and 1½ million. If there is to be a chance

of meeting a transport need, particularly with rural community buses, there will not be a great reduction in the number of unemployed, but any reduction should be welcomed by the Government. A person who has been driving buses, but who finds himself unemployed and in receipt of unemployment benefit, perhaps will drive the community bus if he can be paid but otherwise will remain unemployed.
For all these reasons, it seems to me that the amendment is justified by common sense and because it might enable more community buses to operate, to the great advantage of those who want to have a bus service and who should have one, but who, without the amendment, would have no hope of getting one.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is correct in his recollection of what I said in Committee about our desire to facilitate the expansion of community bus ser vices. The Opposition's point in Committee was that occasions might arise from time to time when the volunteers for some reason were not able to make their scheduled drive, and that therefore the community minibus service might not operate—in other words, there would be an emergency. The Opposition put down amendments in Committee to cope with that.
I think that the Opposition are right about that. Therefore, having undertaken to look at the matter again, we have put down Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, which enable the people organising the bus service to pay a driver, in the event of his having to forsake his job for the period in which he stands in during an emergency and drives the community bus, so that the service shall be maintained.
While not wholly meeting the hon. Gentleman's wider point, this is, I think, a reasonable response to the Opposition's representations on practical grounds. Therefore, I hope that, given that we are putting forward Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to seek to withdraw Amendment No. 30 and not to move Amendment No. 31.

Mr. Fry: I thank the Under-Secretary for tabling Amendments Nos. 32 and 33, which result from the debate on this part of the Bill in Committee. I am glad that in the wording he has put forward he has


taken on board the point made at the time by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). However, we of course regard this as very much a second best. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on putting forward his amendments tonight. The need for them reveals that the solution cannot be on the lines on which the Government are to move. In the long term, there will have to be commercially operated minibuses to, cater for this need.
3.30 a.m.
I know that at the moment the Government resist that, but I am satisfied in my own mind that we are moving towards it. We shall have to allow people in the more remote parts of the country—people such as the garage proprietor or someone else locally—to operate on a commercial basis, not on the same scale as the normal bus service but merely to provide some kind of transport for the people.
I say that for this reason: despite all the encouragement—one hopes that there will be many more of these schemes, and there are, I believe, only five in operation at present—there will be difficulty in continuing to find people to run community bus schemes and keep them going. Again and again one finds that every organisation, and certainly any voluntary organisation, in the end comes to depend on one or two individuals who do all the work. The problem is to keep those individuals in the right place to operate such schemes. By definition, many of the key people behind community bus schemes will be retired, so that, merely by the passage of time, the problem will recur and one will have to find others to take their place.
Therefore, in thanking the Government for what they have proposed, I say again that we regard it as very much second best and only a step towards allowing commercially operated minibuses inevitably to replace the other buses as we know them at present, which, in our view, will probably eventually die out in many rural parts of the country.

Mr. John Ellis: That was a most significant speech from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). For the first time, we have heard it stated that this is the first step along a certain road. I do not have and I am sure that none of my

hon. Friends has any compunction in saying that, where people have no service whatever, we support this ne wservice if it is for the good of the people as a whole. But I should be failing in my duty, even at this late stage, if I did not ask the House to bear in mind the possible impact of such schemes.
Where there is a bus service—whoever is running it—which is a viable concern for the whole of the day although the buses may not be anywhere near full at times, and it is endeavouring to give some sort of service throughout the day, there is a danger in a service operated in the morning or in the evening if it is then said that one can do away with the rest of the service during the day.
I must enter that caveat. I regard the hon. Gentleman's last speech as most significant. We did not hear that said in Committee, and this is the first time we have heard it so starkly put. The hon. Gentleman is right, in my view, when he says that volunteers have their limitations, for the reasons which he gave. I believe that there is an onward movement here which may have an impact on other people, some of them in the railway unions, who work in my constituency, for example—it is not just a question for the TGWU—and are giving a more comprehensive service.

Mr. Gow: In order that we may make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 6, line 40, after 'disregarding', insert '(a)'.

No. 33, in page 6, line 41, at end add
and
(b) any payment representing earnings lost as a result of making himself available to drive in exceptional circumstances".—[Mr. Horam.]

Clause 5

CAR-SHARING FOR SOCIAL AND OTHER PURPOSES

Amendments made: No. 34, in page 7, line 24, leave out
the methods adopted for meeting the costs
and insert—
notices and advertisement".

No. 35, in page 7, line 25, at end insert—
(1A) In Part V of Schedule 12, at the end of paragraph 13 (advertisements to be disregarded for certain purposes of the Schedule), there shall be added or
(c) a notice displayed or announcement made in or at any place of work with regard to journeys to be made to or from that place by people who work there, or
(d) a notice displayed or announcement made by a club or other voluntary association which—

(i) relates only to journeys arranged incidentally in connection with activities of the club or association (but they must not be activities directed to the provision of road transport facilities, whether for members of the club or association, or for others), and
(ii) is displayed or made in premises occupied or used by the club or association or contained in any periodical issued by it'".—[Mr. Horam.]

Clause 7

EXCESS FARES

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 8, line 20, leave out Clause 7.
This is an amendment necessary to correct a mistake made in Committee. Towards the end of the twentieth and last sitting, when faculties were blunted and in a few cases numbed, a proposal was put forward that conductors of buses should be allowed to charge penalty fares or, in fact, to fine passengers on the spot. In a fuddle of good intentions and mutual congratulation, there floated through on a wave of obtuse bonhomie one of the most flagitious proposals ever to befoul the human mind. That is what I seek to correct.
The mischief that crept into the clause was based upon an obsession with people doing what was described as cheating. I have come across this from some of the representative bodies which have lobbied Members in support of the clause.
The clause is not about cheating. It is designed to catch those who, "without reasonable excuse", travel beyond the stage for which they have paid. One does not need new legislation to deal with people who do that with intent to evade the fare. The clause exposes the passenger to the need for an argument with the conductor in front of other passengers whether he had a reasonable excuse.
I do not know about other hon. Members, but I not infrequently change my mind when travelling on a bus. I may be going to place one and, after that, to place two, but, if it is pouring with rain, I may cut out the first and decide to go on to the completion of my journey.

Mr. John Ellis: A likely story!

Mr. Bell: A likely story! That is just the trouble. The conductor may say "A likely story", and that is it. One may over-travel from mere inadvertence. I do not know whether that would be considered a reasonable excuse. One may do it intentionally because of a change of plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who is not in his place, usually sees things, especially things like the Treaty of Rome, with a hawk-like acuity. But he was a little less clear-sighted than usual when he discussed this matter in Committee, because he said that the excess fare
should generally speaking, be very small—unless there is deliberate evasion when, of course, a fine becomes appropriate or, perhaps, a different course of action".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18th April 1978; c. 1053.]
Is this aimed at evasion which is not deliberate—for example, inadvertent avoidance of the fare? If so, it is an extreme course to expose a passenger to unpleasantness with a conductor. One hears and reads about what bus staff have to put up with nowadays from passengers. It seems that this proposal will expose them to some very disagreeable confrontations.
A certain amount of money is lost by all undertakings, public or private, through dishonesty. We should all like to diminish that. But there is a price to be paid for every stiffening of the procedures and every turn of the screw. I suggest that the price to be paid for whatever saving resulted from the clause would be excessive. We do not need to take panic measures such as this.
I understand that this practice has been in operation in Cardiff for a long time. Having been born and brought up in that city, as I am a Scotsman—that is not as illogical as it sounds—I know that its citizens would handle a matter such as this with considerable discretion.
I have been told that there have been very few applications of the rule. Of


course, that is one way of making it work, but it does not commend it to me. The fact that a certain amount of money has been collected in this way does not mean that all those who were charged 50p or five times the excess fare should have been charged those amounts. Many people would not like to argue in front of all the other passengers and in order to avoid embarrassment they would pay. I do not think that is fair. It is not the way we should run the country, and it is not the kind of law that should be slipped through at the last minute of a long Committee stage.
Although I understand the admirable intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), whose child this proposal was, I felt that although he meant well, he did ill. After Committee stage comes consideration, and on this occasion
Consideration like an angel came,
And whipp'd the offending Adam out of him.

Mr. William Rodgers: It may be helpful if I say a few words about Amendment No. 38 tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). As a Member of the Committee, I do not agree that at any time our faculties were blunted or numbed or that we were suffering from euphoria when we discussed this proposal at the twentieth sitting.
I think the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) made an important amendment to the Bill from a transport point of view, because, as he said in Committee, and as I confirmed, there are considerable losses being made at present through overriding. Those of us who are involved in public expenditure considerations—whether hon. Members on this side of the House who would like to spend more, or Members of the Opposition who would like to save money—cannot be indifferent to the sums lost through overriding. The figure for London Transport was put at £4 million, for Greater Manchester £1 million, and Merseyside £2½ million. They are very substantial sums. Other calculations indicate that losses in our major cities from overriding amount to between 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. of revenue. This is a serious problem which has concerned successive Governments. For those reasons it was right that the hon. Member

for Sutton Coldfield should draw the Committee's attention to this matter and seek to amend the Bill.
In accepting the clause, I said that the principle of the amendment was a good one because there was a serious problem of evasion. I said:
In those circumstances, rather than delay the progress of the Committee or cause unnecessary further consultation, I am prepared to accept New Clause No. 8, subject only to the fact that I shall want to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary because of the implications under the law generally."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18th April 1978; cs. 1055–6.]
I have only one regret about the formulation which I used at that time and that was when I said:
subject only to the fact that I shall want to discuss it with my right hon. Friend".
Very properly, my right hon. Friend has drawn my attention to the fact that this amendment raises very large issues of public policy. I would not agree with the rendering chosen by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, but there are issues which perhaps we should discuss more fully. Therefore, although I hope we shall return to overriding, because this problem cannot be left, I think that the right course for us to take on this occasion is to accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's amendment.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: No voice was raised in Committee against the new clause which I introduced on this subject. It was supported by both the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. It had the support of the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport and most local authorities, including the GLC. Not only did the Government accept the clause, but in consultation with the CPT, the Department helped to draft it. I do not say that contentiously: it shows how wide was the agreement.
I follow the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). There is no justification for failing to act against fares evasion, which costs the public millions of pounds a year. Neither the taxpayer nor honest passengers should have to pick up the bill for the dishonest.
One newspaper said that this proposal was against the rule of law. The rule


of law means tackling dishonesty and not ducking the issue. To accept it is to abdicate responsibility. It is foolish to pretend that it does not happen. London Transport estimates that it loses £7 million on fares evasion on buses, as well as £8 million on the Underground. Of the £7 million, £4 million is the result of overriding. London Transport and the Conservative leaders of the GLC, like Horace Cutler and Shelagh Roberts, supported, I understand, by their Labour counterparts, are concerned by this problem. Other reports suggest that the same is true in the rest of the country.
The purpose of the new clause was to make the legal position clear. The House has to make a choice. In 1976, an application to introduce an excess fares system in Cardiff was approved by the South Wales traffic commissioners under Section 135 of the Road Traffic Act. A similar application in the North-West was turned down, so there is doubt about the law.
There is now evidence that such a scheme can work because it has worked for the last 18 months in Cardiff. That is a scheme of standard or excess fares similar to the proposal in the amendment. In that period about 700 standard fares have been charged and there have been only seven complaints from the public. The scheme has worked to the satisfaction of the police and there has been no evidence of any increase in assaults upon staff. It is eyewash to say that this proposal will lead to violence. The only evidence suggests the contrary.

Mr. Loyden: One-man buses are operated on Merseyside, so the responsibility there would be on one person. How would that person cope at 11.30 at night when taking home people who might have been celebrating? My union, the TGWU, would be very much opposed to its members being responsible for collecting excess fares.
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's arguments. It may well be that this is a problem. But there are different ways of dealing with it. Those ways ought to be explored. There are methods, such as the zoning of fares, which would not take outside the the normal procedure of law the question of fining people in the way suggested in the Bill.

Mr. Fowler: I do not disagree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but I would point out that the position in Cardiff is not much dissimilar from the position which he has described in Merseyside, particularly when it comes to one-man operations. The one-man operations percentage in Cardiff is as high as, if not higher than, anywhere else in England and Wales. The fact is that this scheme has worked. Clearly, discretion has to be exercised, but hon. Members must understand that even if we exercise the discretion under the present law, difficult situations will still arise. Therefore, one cannot abdicate from the situation altogether. There is no easy, neat answer which one will be able to use in every situation.
I believe that the Cardiff scheme has worked. What we were proposing was a more modest and moderate scheme even than was in operation in Cardiff. We used only one aspect of the Cardiff scheme itself, and that was overriding, and we also made it clear that it would have been possible to amend the scheme. For example, one possibility was that the power should be confined only to inspectors.
I think the situation at present is deeply unsatisfactory. It is not enough for this House simply to sweep this problem under the carpet. The Home Office has clearly overridden the Secretary of State for Transport on this issue. So be it. Clearly we are in no position to put that to a vote tonight. But we do have a serious problem in this regard and it would be very wrong if, simply because this moderate scheme is now being abandoned, we abandoned any serious attempt to tackle this problem. That is the danger. As the Secretary of State well knows, many people in local government and the passenger transport industry will be deeply disappointed by his reply.

Mr. John Ellis: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) is rather sensitive on this issue, for proper reasons. From time to time all of us get advice from outside this House. I am always pleased to receive such advice about the amendment that I might table. Certainly, when I put them down, I always accept responsibility for them. However, I felt that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) was a little


unkind when he described the hon. Gentleman as being numb at the time this amendment was put down.
When the proposition of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield came up in Committee, some of us were aghast at the speed with which my hon. Friend accepted it. I went across to the Transport and General Workers' Union to inquire what its attitude would be. After all, they are the people concerned. They, too, are very worried about it.
There is no doubt about the seriousness of the situation. Regrettably, there is an increase in violence on buses, and we all deplore it. With one-man buses in operation, I shudder to think how staff manage at all. But, even on buses where there are conductors, it is frequently the case that late on a Saturday night there is an increase in violence, and TGWU members have expressed their concern about it.
Unions are often charged with being irresponsible and with condoning all sorts of wrongful practices, but T&GWU members have their future in the industry, because that is their job. They want to see it run economically. They want to see their buses well and efficiently run and making a proper return. They accept that there is a problem. But they have made it clear that they expect the fullest consultation before any kind of scheme is implemented, and they are well aware of the position in Cardiff.
What has been done in Cardiff is extremely interesting. I understand from the union that it is the practice for two or three or even four or five inspectors to go round at a time. Though I have not been into it in any detail, presumably consultations were held with the TGWU. But if this scheme is working now—and presumably there is no illegality about it, otherwise it would not be in operation—why do we need this proposal?
I am glad that the House is having second thoughts about this proposal. We think that probably there are other ways of dealing with this problem, and it may be that we are well advised to have second thoughts about it, even at this late hour. Perhaps we ought to look at our buses in general.
I am not speaking from any brief supplied to me by the TGWU now. I merely give the House the observations

made to me by union representatives, and what I am about to say is not part of those observations. But in the old days, when there was a conductor who went round the bus and talked to passengers, there was often a different attitude on buses. This is only my personal view, but at busy times one sees a bus pull up at a stopping place, the door clangs open, the driver take on his fares, and then he drives the bus on. It appears to be a very onerous job, and in view of what we have been discussing it will become even more so if we do not reject this amendment, as I hope we shall.

Mr. Ian Grist: Since Cardiff has been mentioned so often in this debate, it may be helpful if I intervene because I cannot understand the attitude of some hon. Members. In particular, I cannot understand the attitude of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I regret also that he appears to deny his birthright as a native-born Welshman who attended a secondary school in what is now my division and who first entered this House as a Welsh Member.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I am very happy to have that connection, but I must point out that, when I represented Newport, it was in England.

Mr. Grist: I am afraid that my hon. and learned Friend's sense of history fails him. Newport was also the home of W. H. Davies, the well-known Welsh poet of the last century, and I do not think that anyone will deny his nationality.
My hon. and learned Friend began by painting a most vivid picture of what would happen if the proposals in Clause 7 were put into operation. Of course, none of them has happened. It is not a matter of prediction but a matter of observation.
4.0 a.m.
Since October 1976, only 700 people in Cardiff, a city of 300,000 people which serves many more in the course of its daily work as a transport authority, have been charged for overriding. Only seven have complained. Two were children who were charged on the first day and that proved to be a mistake. None went further than the transport manager and no one went to the traffic commissioners or tried to appeal to the courts. It has


worked perfectly. The incidence of overriding has fallen and the number of passengers carried in that period has risen.
The experience of a major authority covering a population that includes immigrants, and port, residential, Civil Service and industrial populations—a fairly good cross-section of the country—is that this system works. It is accepted by those who drive the buses, the one-man operators and the trade unions.
I received a letter this morning from the transport manager for Cardiff. It was posted on 9th May, which says something about the postal system. He explained that, as part of the cutting down of expenses, he sent the letter second class, but the delivery time opens up another debate. He says:
It was as a result of the Cardiff experience that the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport pursued the matter with the Department of Transport. I can say that our scheme in Cardiff has been completely successful, with no adverse reaction.
Those hon. Members who predict bad reactions must explain why one of the major cities of this United Kingdom has operated the scheme so successfully for so long and has saved so much money and court time. Why are those hon. Members so opposed to it?

Mr. Philip Whitehead: The House has waited with eager anticipation for this debate, although the hour is late, not merely in anticipation of the exquisite, if somewhat feline, courtesies being exchanged by hon. Members opposite, as they trade blows over the amendment, but because we all know how embarrassed the Opposition Front Bench is that the amendment has been brought forward at all. Hopes rose earlier when it was reported that there had been no sighting of the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) for several hours, but he surfaced in his place and I congratulate him. He has done a service in bringing forward the amendment and I was pleased to hear the remarks of the Secretary of State in his reply, because there is another point of view and it is not that put by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist). It is the view of many other authorities who have misgivings, though some, like my own in Derby, have loyally, but with conspicuously faint

praise, fallen in line behind the lobbying of the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport.
The document sent by that organisation to all local authorities urging them to write to their Members, as most have dutifully done, makes clear that the Confederation regards this as its pet amendment and as the prelude to other measures that will form a blitz on cheating. But I do not want to see a lever put into the Bill that will open up other areas where relationships between the public and those who serve them on the buses may be exacerbated.
In a letter to me my local authority says:
The officers of the City Council have misgivings about the effectiveness of the penalty fare when it has to be administered by transport staff, but having made this point it must be stated that if a provision of this nature is enacted then at least it has a deterrent value.
I am not sure whether it has a deterrent value upon the staff who have to carry it out or upon the public. Many of us feel that those who drafted the amendment and the pretty-well organised lobby that worked for it have little idea of what it is like to be a clippie on a late-night bus in an urban area. The problem of loss of revenue through various forms of cheating is worse in urban areas than in rural areas.
I will take issue with some of my own hon. Friends as well as with hon Members opposite. I think we might emphasise much more the need in urban areas to move towards flat-rate structures which exist in many Continental cities and which are far better at cutting out the waste and incompetence that comes from the many fare stages and endless bickering over how these fare stages operate.
What happens when the argument begins between some ill-tempered member of the public who has decided to go one extra fare stage, and an already harassed conductor trying to work out whether he can charge an extra 50p or whether the excess is one or two fare stages?

Mr. Grist: Does the hon. Member not imagine that in Cardiff this already happens and that conductors and conductor-drivers cannot make up their own minds whether a person is being reasonable, in


the terms of this Bill. I cannot understand why he thinks that there will be all this trouble if the unions, the drivers and conductors in Cardiff have not protested since 1976.

Mr. Whitehead: I accept that the hon. Member is putting forward the Cardiff City Council's case. The council is very keen to see this scheme further extended. I am putting forward the misgivings that many of us have. The hon. Member should look at the rising figures for assaults on bus crews in London alone. If he does, he will see an area in which we want to eliminate tensions between but crews and members of the public.
We have, very reasonably, always withheld from other agents of local authorities the right to charge one-the-spot fines. We do not allow traffic wardens to do this, for very proper reasons. I do not believe that we should allow bus conductors to do it either. If this is a power that has been given to inspectors, at least inspectors have the right to check whether the ticket held is valid for the whole journey. If not, they can take appropriate action. I do not think we need this legislation. It opens the way to other dangers, so I think the House would be right to throw out the clause and accept the amendment.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am astonished by the remarks coming from the other side of the House. People who deliberately break the law will apparently get away with it.
I am reminded of the East Cowes-Cowes chain ferry which, when the County Council of the Isle of Wight took it over from Cowes Urban District Council, was losing vast sums of money. It was found that the people who went on the ferry in the early hours of the morning were refusing to pay their fares.
The county treasurer on the island had the guts to go down there with a couple of colleagues at 7 o'clock one morning and found out what was going on. After that the ferry's receipts went up by several thousand pounds a year.
Labour Members are actually saying that because people get on buses at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. they should be allowed to go free. The Secretary of State—

Mr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Member not accept that there is a difference between not paying the fare at all, as happened on the ferry, and having paid a fare, but not the correct one by the time the check is made?

Mr. Ross: I accept that there are points which the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has put forward concerning the innocent person who may become involved in a controversy because he has accidentally gone beyond the stage he has paid for. The clause may not be particularly well-worded, but the Minister's reply was a virtual admission that he wished to see it withdrawn. He said that we have to do something about the problem. We need something much stronger than that. If the system works in Cardiff we should at least follow its example.
Let us have something stronger than Labour Members talking about the problems which conductors who are members of the TGWU experience with drunken people getting on the 11 p.m. bus. Bus crews have to be protected because they have a nasty job. For the single-decker buses operating between London railway stations there may be a case for the 10p-in-the-slot system. We need a much clearer explanation from the Government, telling us what they intend to do. We cannot meekly allow this proposal to be withdrawn.

Mr. Ron. Thomas: I am tempted to suggest that not many people would override in Cardiff because I am not quite sure where they would go to. I do not believe that the case for the Cardiff system has been proved. We have been told that X number of people have been charged an excess fare. We have not been given any detail to show that the problem has been lessened. I question the statistics put forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) saying that authorities were losing millions of pounds. I would like to know how they arrived at such figures.
I often get off the bus before the end of the stage for which I have paid. I do not know whether that would be included as a profit to be set against these costs. Often, when I travel by bus from the London Park Hotel, where I stay when in London, I get off at the other side of


Westminster Bridge and walk across if it is a nice morning. I do not know whether that would be included in such calculations.
What distresses me is that it would seem that the Government Front Bench and the Department of Transport were involved in the drafting of the clause. It must have been written by people who have not travelled by bus for a long time.
I am not convinced by what is said to be happening in Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) tells me that a number of inspectors are dealing with the problem in Cardiff. If Cardiff can adopt this scheme, so, too, can Birmingham. London or Bristol if they wish. They do not need legislation. Hon. Members should tell us why the legislation is necessary.

Mr. Norman Fowler: I sought to tell the hon. Gentleman in my opening speech why legislation was necessary. Cardiff went to the South-West Traffic Commissioners and was given permission to operate the system. A similar application was made in front of the North-West traffic commissioners and it was turned down. At the moment the law is unclear on the subject. The House has to decide which way it wants to go.

Mr. Thomas: It very much depends on the reasons for turning the scheme down—whether it was turned down for legal or other reasons.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Another point the hon. Member may care to think about is that the effect of the clause is to deprive the traffic commissioners of a discretion which at present they have and can exercise as they think appropriate.

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Thomas: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman. The implication of his intervention is that if the commissioners felt that in a certain area the problem were not serious enough, or that the scheme would produce confrontations, that would outweigh any disadvantage to be gained by its introduction.
There is nothing to tell us what happens when the individual does not have with him five times the excess fare or 50p. There are many situations in which either the conductor or the driver misunderstands

what the passenger has said about his or her destination. At a later stage it is said "Are you still on the bus? I thought you got off four stops ago." All manner of problems may arise. If those who proposed this measure travelled on some of our buses at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night and saw what some of the drivers and conductors have to put up with, they would not come forward with the sort of nonsense that is included in the clause.

Mr. Temple-Morris: With respect to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), Opposition Members know just as well as Labour Members what drivers and conductors have to put up with in the course of their duty.
The problems that have been described have been dealt with in Cardiff. The situation has been outlined extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist). It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) to go on about violence on London buses. There have been developments in Cardiff that have led to bus drivers refusing to drive even school buses because of violence. However, at no time have they declined to execute the scheme.
As the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) said, unions and drivers must be consulted. The scheme can work only if there is co-operation. That is the central point. It is not good enough for hon. Member after hon. Member to harp on about what this man or that man has to put up with when we are dealing with enormous sums and what amounts to an offence that we all know takes place.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) that the contribution of the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate was insufficient. The interest that the debate has aroused on both sides of the Chamber and on each side of the argument is significant. There is a great problem. We are dealing with a loss of revenue of about £20 million suffered by bus operators throughout the country. It is an enormous sum. It is a high proportion of the total of £150 million that is provided in the form of bus subsidies.
It should not be thought that the debate has arisen merely as a result of a lobby


by the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport. There are many more bodies that are interested. We have heard that there is union interest and knowledge of the scheme. That applies to the various local authority associations and the Greater London Council. It is no State secret that British Rail is interested in the debate and will follow it closely.
The ramifications are far greater than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) suggests. Might my hon. and learned Friend stay on a bus through forgetfulness? Who could dream of anyone in any way apprehending him? What would happen if the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West happened to go to the other side of Westminster Bridge through inadvertence? These examples are not good enough—

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Temple-Morris: I give way to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.

Mr. Ronald Bell: How on earth can the loss of £20 million, or whatever it is, be calculated? How can any survey, sample or no sample, ascertain how much money is being lost by overriding? Are passengers stopped and asked "How much money have you deprived the company of by overriding?" In the very nature of things no such survey can be made. The figure must be plucked out of the air, however much that is denied.

Mr. Temple-Morris: The answer is very simple, certainly so far as the Greater London Council is concerned. The specific figure for overriding is £4 million. That was ascertained during specific checks in 1977, carried out on over 24,000 passenger journeys. As a result, the loss was assessed at £3·97 million in that year. That is the situation. It was specific. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), myself and certain other of my hon. Friends checked out that matter carefully before we reached the Committee stage.
Having dealt with the seriousness of the problem, which has gone way beyond most of the contributions of Labour Members, with the exception of that of the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe

I should like to deal with the Secretary of State. In Committee, he co-operated very much with the spirit in which this amendment was moved then. It was not a question of bonhomie and all the rest of it. That came later, at the end, the grand finale. This was but the hors d'oeuvre to that. At that particular stage, I and other hon. Members on both sides were hoping that we had got something, that we had established at least the first stage, the beginning of an answer to a very serious problem. Anything to do with such an enormous waste of public money is a very serious problem, which we must try to get over together.
In dealing with it, the Secretary of State said various things. I shall not quote them all, but they were very much in agreement. All that he has done now is just to reiterate a few of these things, so as not to say anything different, and then, in effect, to surrender. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight has drawn to the attention of the House, the Secretary of State has not gone on to suggest anything at all. He is not living up to his Press.
The Secretary of State gave a most specific assurance that if necessary, after consultations with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, a new clause would be introduced. Indeed, he was quite definite about his agreement. Lo and behold, only a matter of half an hour ago I happened to open today's edition of the Financial Times and to read an article under the echoing title of "Eyes on the stratosphere and feet in the mud" by the transport correspondent of the Financial Times. The article describes our Secretary of State in terms that are most unlike the activities of which he is guilty with respect to the amendment. It describes him as
An intellectual with a passionate antipathy towards disorganised thinking or disorganised administration, he has a Benthamite political mind schooled in the debating traditions of the House of Commons. 'Always ask the question Why,' he tends to say.
I am afraid that the Secretary of State did not ask the question "Why"? very thoroughly this time. Having been guilty of that—and I use that word quite deliberately—he has not done justice to the various arguments that have been advanced on both sides in regard to this matter.
What I had hoped—and I hope that I speak for other hon. Members who agree with my point of view—is that the Secretary of State might have continued his consultations with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Law Officers, and perhaps let the matter ride for the time being and put it right in another place. Then we could have dealt with it in a proper and organised way.
But with due respect to the professional qualifications of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, for the Secretary of State to give way to an amendment which has to do with my hon. and learned Friend's travel on a bus is not good enough. I always understood—and indeed, my hon. and learned Friend said this quite clearly to the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport—that he tended to travel by tube train and not by bus. Be that as it may, he bases the amendment on the very occasional times when he travels by bus. This attitude is not good enough.

Mr. Fry: I have deliberately translated myself back a Bench because I wanted to contribute to this debate.
On some transport matters I find myself often in agreement with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), particularly on the subject of seat belts, but I do not find myself in agreement with him tonight. I found the proposition that he put forward rather strange. He proposed that, if he changed his mind and went on further than intended on a bus, in some mysterious way he should be allowed to do that. Presumably, if he borrows a book from a library and it is overdue, he objects to having to pay a fine when he has to return it. If he does object to that, I understand the basis of his argument.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bellrose—

Mr. Fry: I do not want to pursue that matter too much further.
I have been listening with great interest to some of the comments of Labour Members. I say quite bluntly that I have a good regard for the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe. (Mr. Ellis), but his performance tonight, after his nonperformance at the last sitting of the Committee, was quite reprehensible. I do not believe that as diligent a person

as the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe would not have known the implications of this. The most charitable thing I can say about him is that he had not received his instructions from Transport House on that morning but that he has since had them and he has given the message to us. That can be the only possible explanation for his behaviour.
The second incredible speech came from the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead). The implication of his speech is that the only way to deal with these terrible people is not to charge them any fares and that the more bloody-minded and difficult people are, the more impossible it is to deal with them and, therefore, everybody should travel free. I do not accept that, and I am sure that the hon. Member does not really accept it.
Spurious opposition has been made to the proposition. What are the real objections to the clause? The first objection that it will not work has been destroyed adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist). The second objection is that people could be persecuted or unjustly accused. If anyone feels that he is being accused unjustly he can say "Here are my name and address, prosecute me." He does not have to pay the excess fare. He can either refuse to pay the fare, and be prosecuted, or—this is more likely—he will not be prosecuted because it does not pay bus companies to follow up such cases. If they did, even more of the honest people's money which pays fares would be used for legal fees to catch people. The option still exists. The genuine person would not be convicted in the courts. All that he would have to do would be to say "Prosecute me."
The third objection concerns attacks upon bus crews. Of course we deplore that. I used to live in Liverpool and catch a bus late at night. If there was a crowd of rowdy people on board, few conductors would bother to collect the fares. Any bus conductor or driver who believes that he will have a difficult time will think hard before taking action. We all know that this situation exists. It is not an answer to say that there cannot be overriding because of the difficulty of collecting the money. Let us be practical and honest. The situation will not arise in the majority of cases.

Mr. Loyden: Our argument does not involve only the question of overriding and excess fares. I should have thought that Opposition Members would be conscious of the need to allow the courts to deal with matters which are thought to be in breach of the law. In the area that I represent, I have seen more and more under-occupied buses travelling from the outer areas to the city. Fare scales are badly balanced. If such buses were full, perhaps we would not have this problem.
We are saying that there are alternative ways of dealing with the problem. Hon. Members have raised the question of zoning and have referred to making public transport attractive for the travelling public. It is nonsense to say that the problem can be tackled—

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is supposed to be making an intervention, but it is developing into a long speech at the wrong time.

Mr. Loyden: Will the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) state clearly the alternatives to approaching the problem on the basis of the narrow question of fines?

Mr. Fry: I am not sure to what problem the hon. Gentleman wants an answer. I thought that we were dealing with the problem of overriding, and I thought that that was dealt with by the amendment. If the hon. Member wants to raise issues on this matter, it is a pity he did not join us in Standing Committee and give us the benefit of his views there.
At the moment, it is the honest and law-abiding travellers who pay. The more overriding and dishonesty there are, the more the honest will have to pay. It is strange that the Secretary of State is apparently prepared to continue using taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to subsidise the bus industry but is not prepared to take steps to take money off the people who are deliberately trying to defraud the bus companies. They are ultimately defrauding the millions of decent, honest people who pay their fares. They are the ones that the Secretary of State is letting down.
I find this change of face uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman. I have a high regard for him. He does not come out of this affair with much credit. Over the last few months there has been a wink here and a nudge there from the Department. The general feeling was that if we put the amendment down we would be pushing at an open door. Who shut the door? Who shot the bolt? One wonders what has happened in the Department and the Cabinet. If the Secretary of State is determined to support my hon. and learned Friend's amendment, he should have the courage to say what has changed since the twentieth sitting of the Committee. I hope that before we end this debate we shall have a few additional words of explanation from the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

TRANSFER OF CONTROLLING INTEREST IN FREIGHTLINERS LIMITED

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 12, line 9, at end insert—
(5) It shall be within the powers of the British Railways Board—

(a) where it appears to them expedient with a view only to achieving the more productive use of road vehicles predominantly used for the carriage of containers which have been or are to be carried by rail, to use such vehicles for any carriage of containers; and
(b) where they have entered into a contract for the carriage of containers or goods in containers (with or without provisions in the contract specifying whether the carriage is to be by road or by rail), and the contract is to be performed predominantly by rail carriage, to use any road vehicles in partial discharge of their obligations under the contract;

and 'containers' means high capacity containers of a kind capable of being carried by freightliner rail vehicles.
(6) The annual report made by the Board under section 4 of the Railways Act 1974 shall include, in addition to the matters there mentioned, such information about the Board's exercise of their powers under subsection (5) above as may be called for by the Secretary of State.".
Those who were members of the Committee will recall our discussion about the


means by which the transfer of Freightliners from the National Freight Corporation to British Rail could be best effected. A proposal was made that we should amend the Bill in a way that we believed would satisfy the conditions. It met with considerable opposition because it was felt that the amendment as proposed would lead British Rail into entering into the general road haulage business to the detriment of other hauliers.
At the time I announced the transfer of Freightliners to British Railways, I made clear that I thought it should have as much opportunity, but neither more nor less, to function effectively within British Rail as it had within the NFC. In other words, there should be no greater powers for British Rail than there were for the NFC during the period when Freightliners has lodged with it. The amendment moved in Committee was designed to ensure that that would be the case. However, that amendment met with some opposition, and since the Committee stage I have been seeking a way of resolving the difficulties. As a result, I have tabled the amendment.
All that I would say about the amendment's acceptability to the main protagonists, the British Railways Board and the National Freight Corporation, is that I think it can be said that both the Board and the NFC feel that the amendment is an adequate means of ensuring that the original purpose in transferring Freightliners to British Rail has been satisfied. I hope very much that the House will take the same view.
The first part of the amendment deals with what might be called the matters of substance. Subsection (6) says that I could exercise further powers to ensure that
The annual report made by the Board under section 4 of the Railways Act 1974 shall include …. such information about the Board's exercise of their powers under subsection (5)
as I may call for. In other words, this is an additional safeguard which I could exercise if I had any doubts about how matters were proceeding. If in future it appeared to me that excessive use of the powers was being made by the British Railways Board, I would be able to direct it under Section 27 of the 1962 Act to cease such activity.
I believe that we have found a formula which meets the Committee's anxieties, as

I believe it has met the anxieties of both the railways and the road haulage industry which were expressed in Committee and since.

Mr. John Ellis: It is true that my right hon. Friend agreed after some debate in Committee to look at the matter again and consult the private sector, the trade union side and so on. That was done, with beneficial results.
I must be careful what I say, or the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) will again insult me by saying that I take instructions. The Transport and General Workers' Union is a responsible organisation. I always find it instructive to talk to my colleagues, people with vast experience. I take into account what I am told. I do not take instructions, but I find the information I receive at the union of great use to me in determining what should be my attitude on various matters. I know that the hon. Gentleman feels rather sore about what happened in the last debate, so I suppose that we must forgive him.
I hope that I have always looked at the question of transport not from a narrow point of view but from the point of view that there should be a role for the railways in the carriage of goods that are most suitable to go by that means. There is enough traffic on the roads anyway. Therefore, I have always been pleased to see developments such as Freightliners.
In certain ways I am less than enthusiastic about Freightliners going back to the railways, but that decision is taken and I hope that it will be a successful enterprise. As we have a nationalised sector on both sides, as far as I can see the concept is that we move goods by lorry down to the railway lines, move them quickly by freight train and take them off by lorry at the other end, with the nationalised sector of road transport, so to speak, doing orthodox freighting along routes which are all roads.
I do not think that there has ever been trouble in the past when difficulties arose. For example, if a line was washed out or there was trouble with a locomotive breaking down, in the past the attitude has been "There are certain difficulties. We must get these freight containers through", and they could go by lorry all the way.
The fear was that Freightliners would be set up as what one might call an orthodox trunking operation which would go into the business and appear as a company freighting by road all the way. The consultations have been held. I am glad to say that that fear has been dispelled in the terms expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State both earlier and since the consultations he has had on the present formulation. I do not think that there is any point between us now, and I thank him for the efforts he has made in that direction.

Mr. Fry: This is just another example showing how the Report stage is so much better than Second Reading. Those of us who were members of the Committee will remember that the Under-Secretary of State had the invidious task of presenting a set of amendments which he had either not seen or not been briefed upon, and on that occasion—I pay tribute to him—the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) weighed in with us, with the result that the Under-Secretary, after having been able to talk out one sitting, had second thoughts and withdrew the original proposals.
Some parts of the road haulage industry accept that the Secretary of State's assurances and the wording of the new amendment are reasonably satisfactory, but it would be wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to imagine that the whole of the industry is happy or feels that in all circumstances it can rely upon assurances.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State means every word he said, but he may not be Secretary of State in a few years' time and this legislation will be on the statute book. I have no doubt that Mr. Peter Parker, who endorses this wording and those assurances, means everything he said, but Mr. Parker may not be chairman of British Rail in the future.
We must direct our attention not merely to assurances given but to the law we are asked to pass. Therefore, while not formally opposing the amendment, I must tell the Secretary of State that we and the haulage industry will watch matters closely, because the part of the amendment which causes concern is the phrase

to use such vehicles for any carriage of containers.
That phrasing would enable British Rail to compete quite considerably with road haulage interests.
However, with those reservations, and accepting the right hon. Gentleman's assurances in the spirit in which he gave them, I shall at this stage say no more.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We come now to several amendments to be moved formally. If there is no objection, I shall put them together.

Schedule 1

RE-STATEMENT OF ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1960, SCHEDULE 12, PART II

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 18, line 10, leave out "Subject to the following sub-paragraphs" and insert:
Where the passengers are carried in the course of a business of carrying passengers".

No. 48, in page 18, leave out lines 16 to 34.

No. 51, in page 18, line 35, leave out
Subject to the following paragraphs".

No. 52, in page 18, leave out lines 38 to 46.

No. 54, in page 19, leave out lines 1 to 6.

No. 55, in page 19, line 7, leave out '6A' and insert '5'.

No. 57, in page 19, line 34, leave out '6B' and insert '6'.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Schedule 2

AMENDMENTS ABOUT ROAD SERVICE LICENCES AND PERMITS

4.45 a.m.

Mr. Horam: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 20, line 15, after 'and', insert
'subject to subsection (2D) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 61.

Mr. Horam: As the Opposition will be aware from my letter to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), this amendment is in response to


an amendment tabled in Committee on the question of excursions within the meaning of the 1968 Act which include a charge for overnight accommodation. Basically, we accept the proposition that was put forward in Committee.

Mr. Younger: We are grateful to the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State for having met our point on this matter. It will enable those who operate coach tours far away from their home bases to do so without being obstructed by the traffic commissioners. This is a valuable change in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Horam: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 20, line 25, leave out 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take Government Amendment No. 60.

Mr. Horam: These amendments fulfil the undertaking given in Committee by my right hon. Friend that he would introduce amendments to meet the point of the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on behalf of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled. We pointed out that it had a number of technical defects, and we have attempted to correct them.

Mr. Norman Fowler: As the Under-Secretary of State has said, these amendments meet the undertaking given by the Government in Committee. They recognise—I think probably for the first time in transport legislation—the rights of the disabled. They place an obligation upon policy-makers to ensure that the needs of the disabled are taken into account in transport policy. I think that the Government's acceptance of our argument will be very much welcomed by the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled, particularly by Peter Large, to whose work I pay great tribute. We are grateful for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 60, in page 20, line 27, at end insert
'and
(e) the convenience of persons who are disabled'.

No. 61, in page 20, line 44, at end insert
'(2D) Traffic Commissioners are not required, in relation to excursions or tours (within the meaning of the Transport Act 1968) for which each fare includes a charge for overnight accommodation in the course of the journey, to take into account the matters specified in subsection (2A)(a) to (c) above'.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Mr. Younger: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 21, line 6, leave out 'six months' and insert 'one year'
I hope that the Minister may by now have had further thoughts about this amendment, which is similar to one which we moved in Committee. This portion of Schedule 2 allows an experiment to take place with a new bus service for a period up to six months whereas before, as was mentioned in Committee, the maximum period was two months, which everyone agreed was not nearly long enough. We contended that six months was not long enough and that it would be more sensible and prudent to have the experiment for a year.
The important point is that many bus services are highly seasonal in terms of passenger traffic. For example, in the Highlands of Scotland it would not make sense to run an experiment from October to March in an area which catered for many tourists.
I hope that the Minister has thought again and will be able to accept the amendment. I am certain—I have confirmed this view with people in the trade—that an experiment over six months would be worthless, but it would be very valuable if taken over a year.

Mr. Horam: I have had further thoughts about this matter but, unfortunately, I have been unable to change my mind. We have moved from a period of two months to six months, and I am afraid we must rest there.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the seasonal problem, and I accept that that may be a difficulty in certain parts of the country. But if in those cases the six months could be chosen to overlap part of the summer and part of the autumn, for example, the problem could be dealt with in that way. We feel that if it were to go to a full year it would genuinely raise the possibility of damage


to existing services in a way in which a period of six months would not.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 3

AMENDMENTS ABOUT LORRIES

Mr. Fry: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 21, line 31, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
1. In section 56 (Power to inspect goods vehicles to secure proper maintenance), for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection:— 
'(4) A goods vehicle examiner or a constable in uniform may at any time require any person in charge of a stationary vehicle on a road to proceed with the vehicle for the purpose of having it inspected to any place where an inspection can be carried out not being more than 1 mile from the place where the requirement is made or not being more than 5 miles from that place if the goods vehicle examiner certifies that in his opinion by reason of the nature of the examination which he considers should be carried out or conditions of weather or visibility it is not practicable to carry out or complete the inspection there or at any nearer place suitable for that purpose'.".
It is a pity that we have arrived at this important amendment at such a late hour. In view of the somewhat bizarre behaviour of the Government on the clause concerning excess fares, I believe that we should examine the background to this amendment.
When we discussed in Committee the subject of the diversion of goods vehicles, the Minister did not give any clear assurance but said that he would re-examine the matter. We felt that the industry and the Department could get together and work out a form of words to reduce the amount of damage to the industry. I shall not weary the House by listing all the problems faced by the haulage industry or emphasising how those problems could be aggravated by the Bill. There is a realisation that the industry could be damaged. Indeed, if that were not true I do not think that the Minister would have taken such a conciliatory line.
I understand that discussions took place between the Freight Transport Association, which is a highly responsible and respectable haulage organisation, and the Department of Transport. After considerable discussion, a form of words was

evolved. The wording took special note of the fact that inspectors might have to endure adverse weather conditions. Therefore, the wording embraced such a situation. Such was the harmony and understanding that the Freight Transport Association and the industry felt that they could accept the revised wording, although from the industry's point of view it was far from ideal.
So far, all was amity, sweetness and light. But it appears that for some reason—I shall be interested to learn what it was—the Minister decided that he could not accept the wording which had been hammered out by his Department. I must inform the Minister that the industry is very disappointed indeed. If it had felt that it had no hope, it might have adopted a different line, but to be led up the garden path with wording which the Government were not prepared to accept was a cause of considerable annoyance.
I appreciate that at this stage of the proceedings it is impossible to push through an amendment, but we shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply and I am sure that in another place there are enough friends of the haulage industry who will return to the attack on this point.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I was not on the Committee and I am not as familiar as other hon. Members with Schedule 3.
Many tankers carry dangerous substances. There have been several incidents in my constituency. In one a leaky valve on a tanker resulted in a cloud of acid gas being blown across a residential area. Will the schedule, amended or not, ensure that if a police constable thinks that a tanker is defective—not only in respect of brakes or steering but in respect of valves—he can prevent its going further without repairs? The major chemical firms in my constituency make periodic checks, but there are cowboy firms. That is what causes apprehension in my constituency. If the schedule does not deal with that problem, can it be amended so that it does?

Mr. John Ellis: I have never been enchanted with this proposed change. I was fascinated to hear from the hon. Member for Welling borough (Mr. Fry) what has gone on behind the scenes. It would be best to leave to the Minister to answer the technical questions of my


hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), but I agree with my hon. Friend on the advisability of any measure to control dangerous vehicles, whether they carry chemicals or not. Sample testing is a good idea.
The difficulty is over the proposal to divert vehicles not just one mile but up to five miles for testing. Probably the amendment, which is only a partial palliative, will be resisted. I still fear that a driver nearing the end of his hours, with only two or three miles to go, might be diverted five miles to a testing station—and his vehicle might be all right after all. One suggestion is that his firm should send out another driver but the firm might be 200 miles away.
We should be able to perfect machines to do comprehensive testing in a layby. One reason for diversion is to send lorries to places where they can be correctly weighed—public weighbridges, for example, rather than testing stations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us something about the technical improvements that have taken place so that we do not have to follow this time-wasting formula.
5.0 a.m.
I have said that I believe in a certain amount of random testing. On the whole that is a good thing, but in circumstances where so much inconvenience can be caused I look to my hon. Friend for an assurance that vehicles will be diverted only when someone has fairly certain reason to believe that something is wrong. Even if the amendment were incorporated in the Bill, some of my fears would remain. I therefore hope that the Minister will give pretty rigorous instructions about how this provision will be applied.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) raised the problem of defective lorries, particularly in the context of those carrying dangerous loads. He should be aware that this whole part of the Bill is designed to "civilise" the heavy lorry. This is only a small improvement in this particular Bill. There are others in the general package. But this part of the programme deals with the problems of excess weight and badly maintained vehicles.
My hon. Friend asked whether a policeman could stop a lorry from carrying on if he saw it to be defective. The answer is basically "Yes". My hon. Friend should be reassured on that point. He should also be reassured that we are taking vigorous steps to deal with the genuine public concern with regard to the subject that he has raised.
With regard to the amendment, the particular possibility which we carefully considered was that of making a diversion of more than one mile contingent upon the examiner or constable in question certifying that the nature of the examination made it expedient as the weather made it necessary. That was the proposition about which we consulted the industry. It was also discussed in Committee. However, we have come to the conclusion that to introduce a system of certification would be an unnecessary additional administrative stage to add to the costs of the system and the paperwork which we would all wish to avoid. It would be a mistake to seek to tie down in statute form the detailed way in which powers of this kind are exercised. It is also fair to say that, while we consulted the industry, there were also questions of the legal form in which to put the proposition under discussion.
Nevertheless, it is accepted that there is natural concern within the industry that diversions of more than one mile should not be ordered on a purely random basis and without sufficient reason. We therefore propose to issue guidance to examiners on the circumstances in which they should use the power of extended diversions. The undertaking is given that this guidance will incorporate the principle of diverting vehicles more than one mile only if justified by the nature of the examination or conditions of weather and visibility.
If it should ever be proposed to depart from that principle, the House would be the first to be told. In effect, we are putting into practice, by the instructions we shall issue to our examiners, the principle which the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) wished to have included in the law, but I think that this is a more practical way of going about it.
I agree that it will deal only partially with the other matter raised by my hon.


Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) about unnecessary diversions towards the end of an eight-hour or nine-hour period of driving, but I think that it will help to a degree in that problem as well.

Mr. Fry: The Minister has obviously tried to make a helpful reply, and it is right that the industry should study it and decide whether it wants to make any further representations. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Title

Amendment made: No. 65, in the title, line 5, leave out 'off-street'.—[Mr. Horam.]

5.6 a.m.

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Long ago and far away as it seems—to be precise, on 19th January last—we gave the Bill a Second Reading. At the end of my remarks on that occasion, I said:
This is not a long and glamorous Bill, but it is a good and necessary one."—[Official Report, 19th January 1978; Vol 942, c. 703.]
Seventy hours of debate later, if it was good then I think that it is better now, and if it was necessary then it is more than ever necessary now. But I am quite prepared to say that the Bill as drafted and brought to the House by me on 19th January has been improved by our discussions in Committee and on Report, and, although the Opposition were foolish enough to vote against Second Reading, perhaps they regret it a little now.
I think that the Bill is significant. It makes a number of very important changes. I think that many hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will look back and believe that they played a part in putting good and meritorious provisions on to the statute book.

5.8 a.m.

Mr. Norman Fowler: It would be unfair not to mention the concessions that the Government have made during the

process of the Bill. As a result, there are important changes affecting, for example, the rights of district councils and important groups such as the disabled. However, having said that, I should make it clear that this is still a disappointing Bill.
Basically, the Government have accepted in principle the case for local devolution—that is to say, they have accepted in principle that Whitehall does not and cannot know best when it comes to the planning of local passenger transport services. However, having accepted the principle, they have not followed this through in practice.
The Secretary of State once described the Bill as being the "rural charter". That description was not used widely in Committee, and for very good reason. It is not a rural charter because it does not put power where that power should be—with the representatives of the local people. At every stage when the Opposition have proposed that further power should be devolved, this has been resisted by the Government. There is a fundamental division between the outward appearance and the reality. Our fundamental objections still remain.
County councils will produce five-year plans and enter into three-year agreements, but they see no commitment on the Government's part to match them. The traffic commissioner system remains largely unreformed. We have community bus services and shared cars—for both of which the Opposition have pressed consistently—and these could have been provided in 1974 when the present Government scrapped the Conservative reforms. But what the Bill misses out is the potential for the development of new commercial services.
We will return to this area again. What is important is that county councils should have more flexibility to run the services that they judge necessary. It is vital that new experiments should take place with new passenger services. We should seek to innovate. We should not be afraid of making experiments. An incoming Conservative Government will want the licensing system to make these negotiations possible, and we regret that the opportunity has not been taken in this Bill.
We regret also some of the decisions that have been taken. The transfer of the ownership of Freightliner to British Rail is one example. The unnecessary restrictions on car parking is another. Where, however, I am glad that there is some agreement is on the future of British Rail. There is now a great deal of common ground on railway policy. Both sides of the House want to see an important future for the railway industry, and it is fair to say that there is a great measure of agreement that British Rail should be far more publicly accountable. However, there are important challenges ahead for British Rail, not least the issue of productivity. It is for British Rail to tackle these problems. What it has, however, a right to expect is the constructive support of this House.
Therefore, we shall not vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. We have expressed our criticisms and we have sought to reach agreement on the points where agreement is possible.

5.11 a.m.

Mr. Penhaligon: I am pleased that we have at last reached Third Reading, though it seems ludicrous that we should be discussing it at 5.10 in the morning. I am pleased that the Bill will reach the statute book. It is the best Bill for many years for providing help for rural transport. It is all very well for the Conservative Party to talk about what it wished it had done, what it had started to do or what it would do if it had the chance, but this legislation is going through and I am pleased.
We have transferred a substantial amount of power to the shire counties and given a clear indication that the often rudimentary bus services in rural areas will be maintained. I am pleased to have been involved with the Government in that.
We are in the fourteenth or fifteenth month of the Lib-Lab pact and we have done something substantial to help rural transport. All the protests from the Conservative Front Bench cannot deny that more progress has been made in rural transport in the past 15 months than was made in the previous 15 years. I am extremely pleased with the co-operation that I have received from the Secretary of State in putting the Bill together.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Resolved,
That one-tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and one-tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948.—[Mr. Albert Roberts.]

Orders of the Day — AIRE VALLEY (ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

5.12 a.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I came into the House at 8.30 yesterday morning, so I am not feeling too enthusiastic about starting an Adjournment debate, but it is a duty which must be done. I apologise to the Minister for keeping him here until this time.
The subject is very important. The River Aire is a sparkling river at its source, but as it flows on to Bradford, Leeds and towards the East Coast it is a very polluted river, though not half as polluted as it was 20 or 30 years ago. There are many people in the area who are interested in conservation and environmental matters.
I want to see certain action taken and to prevent some other things being done. I am raising this matter because to a large extent it involves opencast mining and I feel that the Department of the Environment does not have sufficient powers to deal with this matter. I should like to see more done to prevent opencast mining.
The Department of the Environment has certain responsibilities, and an increasing number of people are becoming interested in the well-being of their environment. I have been appalled at what has been done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and I have had terrific pressure from


people inside and outside my constituency and this area that something should be done. This is why I want to alert the Department of the Environment.
Where I live and was born and bred we have had an opencast mine for 14 years, and we are still being threatened with more. Some people may disagree with me, but I maintain that if one disturbs first-class agricultural land and restoration follows, the land is second-grade. It will not grow root crops for at least 10 or 15 years.
A new opencast site which is almost ready to start is called Gambelthorpe. The inquiry has been held and it is intended to take 12 acres—part of Temple Newsome, which is a public park within the city of Leeds. This park, which has been bought by public money, is almost 1,000 acres in size. Obviously this matter has caused a great deal of concern in my constituency. I have already been informed that, if action is not taken by the Department of Environment, there is likely to be "action".
I want to read from the conveyance, because the park was taken over by the city in about 1922. I shall quote one paragraph:
All coal, iron stone clay and other mines and minerals within and under the premises hereby assured with a power to the vendor and his successors in title and assigns and his and their present and future lessees to search or win, work, carry away and dispose of the same, but by underground workings only.
What is contemplated is permission being given by the Secretary of State for Energy to do opencast mining inside Temple Newsome.
It is high time that someone was alerted to this. If Leeds City Council does not take cognisance of this, it is betraying the public. I hope that the Minister will at least take back the message to the Secretary of State for Energy and mention that I have raised this point.
On the question of opencasting, we are threatened on this particular site. It has been going for about 40 years and it will last for another 13 years. Surely, when we talk about opencast coal we should face the fact that we do not really need it. Despite this, the NCB is still striving to get the 15 million-ton target—to raise it from 12 million tons. In doing so, it is

to a large extent destroying the environment of our district.
The impact of opencast mining on local communities and their environment is something that will take a long time to get over. There are plans for 13 more sites in this area in the Aire Valley from Leeds to Castleford, which is six miles long and five miles wide. It is the only open country between the two conurbations. This work has been going on for two generations, destroying the good things of life, taking away public footpaths.
It can readily be understood why so many people and societies in my constituency and in the Yorkshire and Humberside area have written to me on this issue, asking me to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister. There is no need for such devastation. I know of the powers possessed by the Secretary of State for Energy. There is, however, no immediate need for coal. Things would be different if there were a state of emergency or if hostilities had broken out. Then, no one would object to the workings. People have lived for 40, 50 and 60 years surrounded by opencast workings.
Our power stations have over 17 million tons of coal, which is 1·5 million tons more than they had last year. In addition, the NCB has arranged with the CEGB to stock a further 5 million tons. All this is unwanted coal. This means that by the end of the financial year the CEGB will probably be carrying stocks of coal that it does not need, valued at £250 million, paid for not by the NCB or the CEGB but by the taxpayer. It will cost £25 million a year in interest charges alone. Demand for coal has fallen because of the recession in the steel industry. As a result, coal is accumulating.
Why does the Secretary of State for energy want to increase opencast mining production from 12 million tons to 15 million tons? The coal miners are aware of the situation. This action will put the coal industry in the same position as the steel industry. It is like an albatross round the neck of the industry. The Financial Times of 15th May said:
The Government will subsidise the sale of coal to power stations next year if, as seems likely, too much coal is produced for the available market … the subsidies could run into tens of millions of pounds.


The Government are almost trying to bribe the CEGB to take extra coal. People in my area are heartily sick of opencast mining.
Coal is a strategic reserve. We do not need it now or next year. If we need it in 500 years' time, it will be there and we can get it. Why are we taking the coal out now when it will cost the taxpayer millions of pounds? This move will mean the closing of some pits which are nearing exhaustion and perhaps of others that are not as profitable as some. There is no reason for opencast mining. I ask that we should start to run it down.
The Countryside Commission has taken an interest in this issue. What we want, after 40 years of opencast mining, is a linear path between Leeds and Castle-ford in the Aire Valley. We have the "ings" and we want two lakes. We could have a wildfowl reserve. The environmentalists are well organised in Yorkshire and they have made it clear that they want to see those features developed. However, they cannot do that without the help of the Department of the Environment. They do not have the power to proceed without that help. They admit that they have problems when they put forward schemes for the protection of the amenities that are so important to our well-being.
I make my plea in the early hours of the morning that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and ensure that we get co-ordination and co-operation between the Departments of Energy and the Environment. That is what we want, and at present we do not have it. There are many who feel that in the present circumstances they are bashing their heads against a brick wall. I hope that something can be done in the near future.
We have a tremendous amount of coal and we cannot sell it in the EEC. The stocks are piling up and yet we are destroying first-class arable land. We are destroying part of our heritage and parts of the countryside. I hope and trust that my hon. Friend will give me some consolation and some guarantees that will have some teeth.

5.27 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) for giving me the opportunity to consider the environmental problems arising from mineral working, especially in the Aire Valley. I understand and sympathise with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend's constituents, partly because my area, which is a similar metropolitan area, suffers in much the same way. Like his area, the Greater Manchester area has suffered most of the environmental disasters that other parts of the country worry about.
I, too, have a river that is not as clean as it might be. Both our areas have suffered from the motto "Where there's muck there's brass." It is significant that I have received deputations from Greater Manchester and other areas where there has been opencast coal mining as well as a deputation from my hon. Friend's area.
As a Minister in the Department of the Environment, I have to weigh the real local environmental problems against the national need for mineral working. Coal is not the only problem. There are the problems created by aggregates—for example, sand and gravel and the other requirements that come from the Aire Valley. We cannot have schools, factories, hospitals, houses and roads without aggregates. The construction industry cannot function without them. Similarly, our energy requirements cannot be met without coal.
It has been the policy of all Governments for many years to ensure that the legitimate requirements of industry for minerals should be met from our own resources wherever possible. Unfortunately, mineral operations frequently give rise to harmful environmental effects. I am conscious of that. I have responsibility for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty as well as most mineral planning, and invariably minerals are found in those areas. It is the responsibility of the local planning authorities and of the Government to ensure that the industry keeps the harmful effects to a minimum, but we cannot eliminate these problems entirely if we are to continue to exploit our mineral resources.
My hon. Friend has not mentioned sand and gravel workings specifically, but decisions affecting such workings are made by the relevant planning authority—in my hon. Friend's area the county council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has thought it best to leave such matters to those who know the locality and who know best.
With regard to the planning applications that have been granted, there is some fear that the restoration might take the form of filling with spoil from coal workings. However, the permission which has been granted does not envisage this kind of restoration at all but rather the creation of a water amenity area. I understand that, if there were any proposals for filling with colliery spoil at a later date, a fresh application for planning permission would be required.
Let me turn now to the question of opencast coal working in the area and explain the procedure involved in the giving of consent for such working. National Coal Board opencast coal working requires authorisation by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. It is the current practice that when this authorisation is given the Secretary of State for Energy also gives deemed planning permission for the development, a power derived from Section 2 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958.
However, a public inquiry is held into applications for authorisation whenever there is objection from a local authority or a person having an interest in the land. The inquiry procedures are similar to those for planning appeals and the same considerations have to be taken into account. In particular, the Secretary of State for Energy is under a specific duty to take environmental considerations into account in reaching his decision.
Last September, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and I, together with senior officials of the National Coal Board, met representatives of West Yorkshire County Council and Leeds City Council to discuss the problems of opencast coal mining in this area. The NBC's representatives fully accepted the need for the local authorities to be consulted about the Board's forward planning. It was clear that, even before the meeting, the Board had maintained a

close working relationship with the local authorities.
However, it has to be recognised that the Board's current plans are subject to changes for a variety of reasons and that if the Board tries to indicate too far ahead where working might occur there is a danger of causing unnecessary blight. This happens a great deal in advance planning. I welcome the involvement of the Board in the environmental impact study which has been made, and I am sure that this kind of consultation and discussion provides the best basis for the tackling of these very difficult problems.
Since the meeting that I had with the local authorities, the decision to authorise opencast coal mining at Gamblethorpe under the procdure which I have already described has been announced. The decision letter from the Department of Energy refers to the NCB's general policy approved by the Government, of increasing annual production of opencast coal to 15 million tons per year and the particular need to maintain supplies to power stations and industrial users when an existing site in the area is worked out.
I should perhaps add at this point that the need to increase the level of production and the advantages of opencast coal working were explained in the 1977 report "Coal for the Future", but this, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Energy to what he has said about his feeling that the 15 million tons opencast target is too high a figure, the point that he has made about the very high stocks that are there at present and the necessity, in his view at any rate, for the coal that is needed to come from deep mines. But I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that, interested as I am in the effects of opencast coal and of deep-mine coal, it is a matter for the Secretary of State for Energy.
On the Gamblethorpe decision, there is reference to support for the proposal on the ground that failure to authorise would mean the loss of some 300 jobs directly plus probably another 1,000 jobs indirectly, as well as to objections to the proposal based on environmental grounds.
There is reference to the inspector's conclusion that the adverse effects of the


working would be mainly temporary and do not outweigh the need for coal. The inspector, as my hon. Friend knows, recommended that the application should be granted subject to adherence to a programme of work designed to minimise the environmental impact. The letter makes it clear that the necessary measures will be embodied in the conditions attached to the deemed planning consent.
I understand—my hon. Friend has also mentioned this—that action groups of local residents who are opposed to opencast working have suggested that the area should be designated a linear park. I have consulted the Countryside Commission on this matter. It recognises the area's recreational potential and has expressed willingness to help in principle. But further action is dependent on the public consultation which, I understand, the local authorities will be initiating this summer. The help and advice of the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy and all the agencies with which my Department is involved will be at the disposal of the authorities.
We recognise the particular difficulties involved in striking a balance between the national need for the exploitation of our mineral resources and the environmental problems which this can cause. Later this year, we shall be giving our response to the recommendations of the Stevens Committee on planning control over mineral working and the Verney Committee on aggregates.
We are encouraging and assisting the regional working parties set up by local planning authorities to study the pattern of supply and demand in relation to aggregates, and I am grateful for the assistance given by the industry to these working parties. I am confident that this

information and the information made available by the NCB will assist local planning authorities in devising appropriate and realistic policies for the exploitation of aggregates in their structure and local plans.
My hon. Friend asked for increased co-ordination between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy. An example of this is the meeting at which the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and I met the local authorities. I appreciate that there is much cynicism among local authorities and the public. The county councils are responsible initially for planning applications for all other minerals but the Department of Energy is responsible for opencast coal. We recognise that there is a feeling against us. We are examining that.
The Department of the Environment is alert to the problems of opencast mining. We appreciate that the areas where opencast coal is available are the areas which have suffered for many years from both opencast and deep mines. The tips are an illustration of that. My Department does much to help local authorities to remove these eyesores. We are spending £18 million this year, much of it in the northern areas, on this.
I undertake to examine what my hon. Friend has said about the legal position at Temple Newsome park. I shall draw the attention of both my right hon. Friends to that. I welcome any debate of this kind. The House takes too little interest in pollution and the environment. Despite the late hours that I have kept, I am glad that there are two Adjournment debates on environmental matters this week.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Six o'clock a.m.